MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062877193 · doi:10.1139/p07-076

Study of hadrons emission in 4.5<i>A</i> GeV/<i>c</i><sup>32</sup>Sinteractions with emulsion

2007· article· en· W2062877193 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Abdelsalam, B. M. Badawy, E. El-Falaky

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryJoint Institute for Nuclear Research
KeywordsPhysicsHadronNuclear physicsProjectileMomentum (technical analysis)Exponential functionNuclear emulsionRest frameExcited stateYield (engineering)Atomic physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental study of the forward and backward emission of relativistic and fast hadrons in the interactions of 4.5 A,GeV/c 32 S with emulsion was carried out. The study supports the conclusion that a collective mechanism is responsible for the production of particles in the backward hemisphere (which is restricted beyond the kinematics limit). The backward emission of both shower and grey particles can be described by an exponential decay law independent of the projectile size. The experimental results suggest that the backward particles result from the decay of the system in a latter stage of the interaction. While the average multiplicities of the shower particles emitted in the forward hemisphere are strongly dependent on the projectile size and incident momentum, the average values of those emitted into the backward hemisphere are found to be only a function of the target size (i.e., impact parameter). Thus, the backward particle production can be considered as a yield of a highly excited target system, in its rest frame.PACS Nos.: 25.75.–q, 25.75.Dw, 25.75.Gz, 25.75.Ld, 25.70.Mn, 25.70.Pq,41.75.Ak, 41.75.Cn, 29.40.Rg, 07.68.+m

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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