MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The final measurements of the muon decay parameters from the TWIST experiment

2013· article· en· W2020989949 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R. Bayes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWestern Canada Research GridCompute CanadaTRIUMF
KeywordsMuonPhysicsTwistNuclear physicsParticle physicsSpectrometerMeasure (data warehouse)Momentum (technical analysis)Physics beyond the Standard ModelGeometryOpticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The TWIST (TRIUMF Weak Interaction Symmetry Test) experiment probes the Lorentz structure of the weak interaction using muon decay. This structure has a very well defined form under the Standard Model (SM) which makes precise predictions for the shape of the decay positron spectrum with respect to momentum and angle. The shape of the spectrum may be described under some rather general assumptions using a set of decay parameters whose values according to the SM are ρ = δ = 3/4, η = 0, and ξ = 1. TWIST uses a large sample of muon decays in a large acceptance spectrometer to measure the decay parameters to an order of magnitude greater precision than previous measurements. This experiment saw its last year of data collection in 2007. As TWIST is a systematics dominated experiment, much effort has been spent on refinements of the estimates of the systematic uncertainties over previous TWIST results. These proceedings will discuss the measures taken to achieve the precision goal of parts in 10 4 , and the physics implications of the experiment.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207