MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107900788 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/015

Ultra-high energy probes of classicalization

2012· article· en· W2107900788 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitonQuantumLimit (mathematics)Production (economics)Classical limitsortPair productionCOSMIC cancer databasePlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classicalizing theories are characterized by a rapid growth of the scattering cross section. This growth converts these sort of theories in interesting probes for ultra-high energy experiments even at relatively low luminosity, such as cosmic rays or Plasma Wakefield accelerators. The microscopic reason behind this growth is the production of N -particle states, classicalons, that represent self-sustained lumps of soft Bosons. For spin-2 theories this is the quantum portrait of what in the classical limit are known as black holes. We emphasize the importance of this quantum picture which liberates us from the artifacts of the classical geometric limit and allows to scan a much wider landscape of experimentally-interesting quantum theories. We identify a phenomenologically-viable class of spin-2 theories for which the growth of classicalon production cross section can be as efficient as to compete with QCD cross section already at 100TeV energy, signaling production of quantum black holes with graviton occupation number N ∼ 10 4 .

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207