MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172287925 · doi:10.1139/p06-051

Forward backward studies of 22Ne(28Si)-emulsion interactions at (4.1-4.5) AGeV/c

2006· article· en· W2172287925 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. S. Abdel‐Aziz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCascadeNuclear emulsionSuperposition principleNuclear physicsNucleonMultiplicity (mathematics)Monte Carlo methodEmulsionNucleusParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Statistical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The characteristics of nucleus–nucleus collisions at high energies are investigated for the interaction of 22Ne and 28Si with emulsion nuclei . The multiplicity and correlations of the forward (θ < 90°) and backward (θ ≥ 90°) secondary particles emitted are calculated according to the modified cascade and modified Fritiof models. The predictions of the two models are compared with experimental data at an incident momentum of (4.1–4.5) GeV/c per nucleon. Both models depend on the Monte Carlo techniques where the modified cascade model implies the superposition of nucleon–nucleon interactions, and the modified Fritiof model utilizes the Regge theory for the description of the cascading process. Comparison with data shows no clear preference of one model over the other. However, the modified Fritiof model seems to be nearer to the experimental data than the modified cascade model.PACS No.: 13.85.–t

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207