MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1704461015 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.92.035205

Measurement of absorption and charge exchange of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msup><mml:mi>π</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math>on carbon

2015· article· lv· W1704461015 on OpenAlexafffund
K. Ieki, E. S. Pinzon Guerra, S. Berkman, S. Bhadra, ChunJun Cao, P. de Perio, Y. Hayato, M. Ikeda, Y. Kanazawa, J. Kim, P. Kitching, K. Mahn, T. Nakaya, M. Nicholson, K. Olchanski, H. A. Tanaka, S. Tobayama, M. J. Wilking, Takeshi Yamauchi, S. Yen, M. Yokoyama

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review C · 2015
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaTRIUMFUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceGovernment of OntarioCanada Foundation for InnovationCompute CanadaUniversity of TorontoTRIUMF
KeywordsCharge exchangePionCharge (physics)Absorption (acoustics)Momentum (technical analysis)AlgorithmNuclear physicsPhysicsMathematicsAtomic physicsParticle physicsIonQuantum mechanicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The combined cross section for absorption and charge exchange interactions of positively charged pions with carbon nuclei for the momentum range 200 MeV/$c$ to 300 MeV/$c$ have been measured with the DUET experiment at TRIUMF. The uncertainty is reduced by nearly half compared with previous experiments. This result will be a valuable input to existing models to constrain pion interactions with nuclei.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review CSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207