Hadronic Parity Violation: A New View Through the Looking Glass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
▪ Abstract Studies of the strangeness-changing hadronic weak interaction have produced a number of puzzles that have evaded a complete explanation within the Standard Model. Their origin may lie either in dynamics peculiar to weak interactions involving strange quarks or in more general aspects of the interplay between strong and weak interactions. In principle, studies of the strangeness-conserving hadronic weak interaction using parity-violating hadronic and nuclear observables provide a complementary window to this question. However, progress in this direction has been hampered by the lack of a suitable theoretical framework for interpreting hadronic parity violation measurements in a model-independent way. Recent work involving effective field theory ideas has led to the formulation of such a framework, simultaneously motivating the development of a number of new hadronic parity violation experiments in few-body systems. We review these recent developments and discuss the prospects and opportunities for further experimental and theoretical progress.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".