MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A novel comparison of Møller and Compton electron-beam polarimeters

2017· article· en· W2534113810 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Letters B · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotocathodes and Microchannel Plates
Canadian institutionsTRIUMFUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersThomas Jefferson National Accelerator FacilityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTRIUMFU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsPolarimeterPolarimetryAsymmetryCompton scatteringCathode rayPolarization (electrochemistry)Beam (structure)ElectronOpticsScatteringNuclear physicsParticle physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have performed a novel comparison between electron-beam polarimeters based on Møller and Compton scattering. A sequence of electron-beam polarization measurements were performed at low beam currents (<5μA) during the Qweak experiment in Hall-C at Jefferson Lab. These low current measurements were bracketed by the regular high current (180μA) operation of the Compton polarimeter. All measurements were found to be consistent within experimental uncertainties of 1% or less, demonstrating that electron polarization does not depend significantly on the beam current. This result lends confidence to the common practice of applying Møller measurements made at low beam currents to physics experiments performed at higher beam currents. The agreement between two polarimetry techniques based on independent physical processes sets an important benchmark for future precision asymmetry measurements that require sub-1% precision in polarimetry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · 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