MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999517606 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.62.043001

Supernova relic neutrino background

2000· article· en· W1999517606 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manoj Kaplinghat, Gary Steigman, Terry P. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutrinoSupernovaPhysicsAstrophysicsObservatoryNeutrino detectorType (biology)Flux (metallurgy)Particle physicsAstronomyNeutrino oscillationGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An upper bound to the supernova relic neutrino background from all past type II supernovae is obtained using observations of the universal metal enrichment history. We show that an unambiguous detection of these relic neutrinos by the SuperKamiokande detector is unlikely. We also analyze the event rate in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (where coincident neutrons from ${\overline{\ensuremath{\nu}}}_{e}\stackrel{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}{D}{\mathrm{nne}}^{+}$ might enhance background rejection), and arrive at the same conclusion. If the relic neutrino flux should be observed to exceed our upper bound and if the observations of the metal enrichment history (for $z<1)$ are not in considerable error, then either the type II supernova rate does not track the metal enrichment history or some mechanism may be responsible for transforming ${\overline{\ensuremath{\nu}}}_{\ensuremath{\mu},\ensuremath{\tau}}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\overline{\ensuremath{\nu}}}_{e}.$

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations77
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fieldsSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207