Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semileptonic Decays and Sides of the Unitarity Triangle * C. Bauer, 1,9 C. Bernard, 2 I. Bigi 3 , M. Datta, 4 D. del Re, 5 B. Grinstein, 6 S. Hashimoto, 7 U. Langenegger, 8 Z. Ligeti, 9 M. Luke, 10 E. Lunghi, 11 P. Mackenzie, 12 A. Manohar, 13 T. Moore, 14 D. Pirjol, 15 S. Robertson, 16 I. Rothstein, 17 I. Stewart, 1 8 M. Voloshin 19 University of California, Berkeley; 2 Washington University; 3 Notre Dame University; University of Wisconsin, Madison; 5 University of Rome; 6 University of California, San Diego; High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK); 8 Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 10 Toronto University; 11 ITP - University of Zurich; Fermilab; 13 University of California, San Diego; 14 University of Massachusetts Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 16 McGill University; 17 Carnegie-Mellon University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 19 University of Minnesota October 2003 *This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098. DISCLAIMER This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof or The Regents of the University of California.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".