Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ATLAS experiment is a general purpose detector designed to exploit the full potential of the Large Hadron Collider at both low and high luminosity running. Central to the ATLAS physics program is what one can term discovery physics. In defining the calorimeter design goals this discovery physics has been a major consideration. An important design touchstone was the ability to discover a standard model Higgs over a wide mass range. This is shown in Fig.1. At low masses the energy resolution for photons, and fine electromagnetic spatial resolution, are at a premium in order to distinguish photons from 0 π and to reconstruct the channel H γγ → against a large background; this sets the design goals for the electromagnetic calorimeter system. In the intermediate mass region the decay channel H l l l l + − + − → again mandates high quality electromagnetic calorimetry over a wide rapidity range. In the high mass region up to 1 TeV, the ability to identify jets and to reconstruct jet invariant masses is a major design consideration. Many “discovery” topics, such as supersymmetery, depend on the detection of missing energy and require hermetic hadronic calorimetry. These are only the major design goals, and clearly more optimization than can be covered here has gone on in the design of ATLAS, see [1]. A summary of the calorimeter design goals, and the chosen technologies is given in Fig. 2. At this meeting the construction and testing of the electromagnetic calorimeters was covered in separate contributions, see [2], [3]. Here we restrict ourselves to a discussion of the Forward Calorimeter, the assembly of the end cap calorimeters, and plans for combined test beams.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it