MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067067796 · doi:10.5539/apr.v6n5p1

On the Field Below SM, Analysis and Predictions

2014· article· en· W2067067796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jacques Consiglio

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsBosonField (mathematics)Large Hadron ColliderParticle physicsStandard Model (mathematical formulation)Resonance (particle physics)QuarkBasis (linear algebra)Theoretical physicsQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanicsGeometryGauge (firearms)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We previously showed that the elementary particles mass spectrum is not random at all and probably originates in resonances of a single field below the known forces and fields. Here we first improve our demonstration leading to a single field; we show how resonances are compatible with the standard model symmetries and give coherent mass equation parameters. On this basis, we build a toy model of the field below which is consistent with those parameters and with the resonance numbers of quarks and massive bosons. It enables computing the W±, Z0, and H0 boson pole masses with high precision and the widths also come naturally. The resulting W± mass is in close agreement with experimental data but it disagrees with the SM prediction. An important consequence is that nothing new should appear in the next LHC run because geometrical constraints show that there is probably nothing else to find. Finally, the fundamental resonance agrees with the Dirac condition; it explains the other coefficients of the theory and shows the nature of the field.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207