MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291241285 · doi:10.2172/1095028

International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 2: Physics

2013· report· en· W2291241285 on OpenAlexaff
Howard Baer, Tim Barklow, Yuanning Gao, André H. Hoang, Shinya Kanemura, Jenny List, Heather E. Logan, A. Nomerotski, Maxim Perelstein, Michael E. Peskin, R. Pöschl, Jürgen Reuter, Sabine Riemann, Aurore Savoy-Navarro, Géraldine Servant, Tim M. P. Tait, Jaehoon Yu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuminosityInternational Linear ColliderColliderDetectorDocumentationPhysicsVolume (thermodynamics)Line (geometry)World classBaseline (sea)Computer scienceNuclear physicsEngineeringAstronomyOpticsOperating systemGeologyMathematicsIndustrial engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For more than twenty years, an advanced electron-positron collider has been put forward as a key component of the future program of elementary particle physics. We have a well-established Standard Model of particle physics, but it is known to be incomplete. Among the many questions that this model leaves open, there are two — the origin of the masses of elementary particles and the particle identity of cosmic dark matter – that should be addressed at energy scales below 1 TeV. It has been appreciated for a long time that a next-generation electron-positron collider would give us the ability to make precision measurements that would shed light on these mysteries. Now the technology to build this electron-positron collider has come of age. This report is a volume of the Technical Design Report for the International Linear Collider (ILC). The accompanying volumes of this report lay out the technical design of a high-luminosity e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> collider at 500 GeV in the center of mass and of detectors that could make use of the collisions to perform high-precision measurements. In this volume, we summarize the physics arguments for building this collider and their appropriate relation to the situation of particle physics as of the fall of 2012. The discussion in this volume supplements the presentation of the physics opportunities for a 500 GeV e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> collider given in the review articles, the 2001 regional study reports, the 2006 study of ILC/LHC complementarity, and the 2007 ILC Reference Design Report.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.051

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations47
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207