MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104772168 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/20146605002

Early Results from the Q<sub>weak</sub>Experiment

2014· article· en· W2104772168 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaTRIUMFUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)AsymmetryBeam (structure)Charge (physics)Focus (optics)ExploitQuark

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A subset of results from the recently completed Jefferson Lab Qweak experiment are reported. This experiment, sensitive to physics beyond the Standard Model, exploits the small parity-violating asymmetry in elastic scattering to provide the first determination of the proton’s weak charge . The experiment employed a 180 μ A longitudinally polarized 1.16 GeV electron beam on a 35 cm long liquid hydrogen target. Scattered electrons in the angular range 6° < θ < 12° corresponding to Q 2 = 0.025 GeV 2 were detected in eight Cerenkov detectors arrayed symmetrically around the beam axis. The goals of the experiment were to provide a measure of to 4.2% (combined statisstatistical and systematic error), which implies a measure of sin 2 ( θ w ) at the level of 0.3%, and to help constrain the vector weak quark charges C 1 u and C 1 d . The experimental method is described, with particular focus on the challenges associated with the world’s highest power LH 2 target. The new constraints on C 1 u and C 1 d provided by the subset of the experiment’s data analyzed to date will also be shown, together with the extracted weak charge of the neutron.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle InteractionsFrench-language works237,207