Charged pion form factor between<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0</mml:mn><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mn>60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math>and<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mn>45</mml:mn><mml:mi> </mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GeV</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math>. II. Determination of, and results for, the pion form factor
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The charged pion form factor, ${F}_{\ensuremath{\pi}}({Q}^{2})$, is an important quantity that can be used to advance our knowledge of hadronic structure. However, the extraction of ${F}_{\ensuremath{\pi}}$ from data requires a model of the ${}^{1}\mathrm{H}(e,{e}^{'}{\ensuremath{\pi}}^{+})n$ reaction and thus is inherently model dependent. Therefore, a detailed description of the extraction of the charged pion form factor from electroproduction data obtained recently at Jefferson Lab is presented, with particular focus given to the dominant uncertainties in this procedure. Results for ${F}_{\ensuremath{\pi}}$ are presented for ${Q}^{2}=0.60\text{\ensuremath{-}}2.45 {\mathrm{GeV}}^{2}$. Above ${Q}^{2}=1.5 {\mathrm{GeV}}^{2}$, the ${F}_{\ensuremath{\pi}}$ values are systematically below the monopole parametrization that describes the low ${Q}^{2}$ data used to determine the pion charge radius. The pion form factor can be calculated in a wide variety of theoretical approaches, and the experimental results are compared to a number of calculations. This comparison is helpful in understanding the role of soft versus hard contributions to hadronic structure in the intermediate ${Q}^{2}$ regime.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.260 | 0.005 |
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 it