MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001358528 · doi:10.1086/322324

Cosmic‐Ray Electrons and Positrons from 1 to 100 GeV: Measurements with HEAT and Their Interpretation

2001· article· en· W2001358528 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. A. DuVernois, S. W. Barwick, J. J. Beatty, Amit Bhattacharyya, Geoffrey C. Bower, C. Chaput, S. Coutu, G. A. de Nolfo, D. M. Lowder, S. P. Mc Kee, D.R. Muller, J. Musser, S. Nutter, E. Schneider, S. P. Swordy, G. Tarlé, A. Tomasch, E. Torbet

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic rayPositronAntimatterElectronAstrophysicsContext (archaeology)Range (aeronautics)Spectral lineNuclear physicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurements of the energy spectra of negative electrons and positrons have been performed with the High-Energy Antimatter Telescope (HEAT) in two balloon flights—1994 May from Fort Sumner, NM, and 1995 August from Lynn Lake, Manitoba. We present the combined data set from these two flights, covering the energy range 1-100 GeV. We compare our data with results from other groups and discuss the data in the context of diffusive propagation models. There is some evidence that primary electrons above 10 GeV and cosmic-ray nuclei exhibit the same energy spectrum at the source, but that the source spectrum becomes harder at lower energy. Within the experimental uncertainties, the intensity of positrons is consistent with a purely secondary origin, due to nuclear interactions in interstellar space.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations246
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207