MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008366992 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.65.073035

Violation of the equivalence principle in the light of the SNO and SK solar neutrino results

2002· article· en· W2008366992 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amitava Raychaudhuri, Arunansu Sil

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNeutrino Physics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Calcutta
KeywordsPhysicsNeutrinoMassless particleSolar neutrinoSuper-KamiokandeParticle physicsSolar neutrino problemNeutrino oscillationSpectral lineElectron neutrinoNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) result on charged current deuteron disintegration, the Super Kamiokande 1258-day data on electron scattering, and other solar neutrino results are used to reexamine the model of neutrino oscillations driven by a violation of the equivalence principle. We use a ${\ensuremath{\chi}}^{2}$ minimization technique to examine oscillations between the ${\ensuremath{\nu}}_{e}$ and another active neutrino, both massless, and find that within the standard solar model the fit to the SNO and Super-Kamiokande spectra is moderately good while a very good fit is obtained when the absolute normalizations of the ${}^{8}\mathrm{B}$ and ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}+p$ (hep) neutrino fluxes are allowed to vary. The fit to the total rates from the different experiments is not encouraging but when the rates and spectra are considerd together the situation is much improved. The best fit prefers maximal mixing, essentially no hep neutrinos, and a 23% reduction in the ${}^{8}\mathrm{B}$ neutrino flux. We remark on the expectations of the violation of the equivalence principle model for the neutral current measurements at SNO.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fieldsSame topicNeutrino Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207