Evaluation of the strength of electron-proton scattering data for determining the proton charge radius
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precisely measured electron-proton elastic scattering cross sections [Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 242001 (2010)] are reanalyzed to evaluate their strength for determining the rms charge radius (${R}_{\mathrm{E}}$) of the proton. More than half of the cross sections at lowest ${Q}^{2}$ are fit using two single-parameter form-factor models, with the first based on a dipole parametrization, and the second on a linear fit to a conformal-mapping variable. These low-${Q}^{2}$ fits extrapolate the slope of the form factor to ${Q}^{2}=0$ and determine ${R}_{\mathrm{E}}$ values of approximately 0.84 and 0.89 fm, respectively. Fits spanning all ${Q}^{2}$, in which the single constants are replaced with cubic splines at larger ${Q}^{2}$, lead to similar results for ${R}_{\mathrm{E}}$. We conclude that the scattering data are consistent with ${R}_{\mathrm{E}}$ ranging from at least 0.84 to 0.89 fm, and therefore is consistent with both of the discrepant determinations of ${R}_{\mathrm{E}}$ made using muonic and electronic hydrogen-atom spectroscopy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it