MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094340909 · doi:10.1142/s0217751x05025863

Measuring Cosmic Ray and Atmospheric Neutrinos in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory

2005· article· en· W2094340909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Currat

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics A · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNeutrinoMuonZenithCosmic rayNeutrino detectorCherenkov radiationNeutrino astronomyCosmic neutrino backgroundCOSMIC cancer databaseMeasurements of neutrino speedSolar neutrino problemAtmosphere (unit)Solar neutrinoObservatoryParticle physicsNuclear physicsAstronomyNeutrino oscillationDetectorMeteorologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High energy muons and neutrinos are produced by the interaction of primary cosmic rays in the Earth's upper atmosphere. These primary interactions produce mesons that decay into muons and neutrinos. SNO is in a unique position amongst underground experiments in the world. At the depth of over 6 km water equivalent, it is the deepest underground laboratory currently in operation. SNO can make a number of novel measurements using muons. First, SNO is sensitive to the downward muon rate coming from primary cosmic ray interactions. Second, SNO's great depth makes possible the detection of atmospheric neutrinos (via the detection of neutrino induced muons) from the nadir to inclinations as large as cos (θ zenith ) ≃ 0.4 above the horizon. Although SNO is a modest-size Cherenkov detector, SNO's unique niche allows it to make important model-independent checks of atmospheric neutrino oscillations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics ASame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207