MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1611112855 · doi:10.1063/1.2813811

Precision Solar Neutrino Measurements with the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory

2007· article· en· W1611112855 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N. S. Oblath, Ricardo Alarcón, P. L. Cole, C. Djalali, Fernando Umeres

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNeutrino Physics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutrinoSolar neutrinoPhysicsCherenkov detectorNeutrino detectorNuclear physicsCherenkov radiationSolar neutrino problemObservatoryNeutronMeasurements of neutrino speedDetectorFlux (metallurgy)Charged currentNeutral currentNeutrino oscillationAstronomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) is the first experiment to measure the total flux of active, high‐energy neutrinos from the sun. Results from SNO have solved the long‐standing “Solar Neutrino Problem” by demonstrating that neutrinos change flavor. SNO measured the total neutrino flux with the neutral‐current interaction of solar neutrinos with 1000 tonnes of D2O. In the first two phases of the experiment we detected the neutron from that interaction by capture on deuterium and capture on chlorine, respectively. In the third phase an array of 3He proportional counters was deployed in the detector. This allows a measurement of the neutral‐current neutrons that is independent of the Cherenkov light detected by the PMT array. We are currently developing a unique, detailed simulation of the current pulses from the proportional‐counter array that will be used to help distinguish signal and background pulses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicNeutrino Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207