MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001460175 · doi:10.1139/p09-001

Pionization at AGS and SPS energies ― degree of coherence and its target excitation dependence

2009· article· en· W2001460175 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dipak Ghosh, Argha Deb, Srimonti Dutta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudorapidityPhysicsProjectileExcitationScalingPionHadronCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Nuclear physicsAtomic physicsCharged particleQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The target excitation dependence of the higher order cumulant correlation of pions is studied in the present work in the framework of void probability scaling. The data set of pions produced for 16O–AgBr interactions at 2.1 AGeV and 32S–AgBr interactions at 200 AGeV was divided into three sets depending upon the number of grey tracks ng. The different sets of ng correspond to different degrees of target excitation. Analysis was carried out for each set in different pseudorapidity intervals. For the lower projectile energy the void probability scaling is observed only for low target excitation for all pseudorapidity intervals. For the comparatively higher projectile energy, scaling is observed for all pseudorapidity intervals and all target excitation. In other words, for higher projectile energy, scaling is almost independent of the target excitation. The results are interpreted from the point of view of the two source model of particle production.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207