Polarizations for proton knockout reactions from<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn><mml:mo>∕</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>orbits at<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.3em"/><mml:mtext>GeV</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The polarization of protons emitted in $(p,2p)$ reactions has been measured for three kinds of targets at $1\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\text{GeV}$. The values of the polarization that we obtain are significantly smaller than the values predicted using the nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction in free space, and the discrepancy between the two is seen to increase monotonically as a function of the effective mean density, which is defined as a measure of the sensitivity of a reaction to density-dependent terms of the interaction. The experimental data are also compared with a model calculation that includes a relativistic effect, and it is found that inclusion of this effect is able to account for about half of the density-dependent discrepancy between the experimental results and the values predicted with the free space NN interaction. These results, in conjunction with the previous results at $392\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\text{MeV}$, indicate that this discrepancy is not caused by a contribution of multistep processes and provide further evidence that there exists a medium effect.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.137 | 0.011 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".