MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2161124041 · doi:10.1142/9789814340861_0049

RECENT RESULTS FROM WIMP-SEARCH ANALYSIS OF CDMS-II DATA

2010· book-chapter· en· W2161124041 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zeeshan Ahmed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsWIMPPhysicsDark matterWeakly interacting massive particlesMassive particleNuclear physicsParticle physicsDetectorAstrophysicsScalar field dark matterOpticsCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cryogenic Dark Matter Search experiment (CDMS-II), at Soudan Underground Laboratory, employed an array of germanium and silicon low-temperature particle detectors to identify nuclear recoils from elastic scattering of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs).We report results from the analysis of WIMP-search data acquired between October 2006 and July 2007.No events were observed.Combined with previous CDMS-II data, this results in an upper limit on the WIMP-nucleon spin-independent interaction cross-section of 4.8×10 -44 cm 2 at 90% CL for a 60 GeV/c 2 WIMP.CDMS-II ended operations in March 2009, to be upgraded to SuperCDMS with 2.5 times more massive detectors that have improved background rejection.The first set of such detectors has been deployed at Soudan and is taking data.Since these results were reported at EPS 2009, the full CDMS-II exposure has been analyzed and has led to a lower limit on the WIMP-nucleon interaction cross-section than the one reported here.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena→French-language works237,207→