Roadmap for the international, accelerator-based neutrino programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In line with its terms of reference the ICFA Neutrino Panel has developed a roadmap for the international, accelerator-based neutrino programme. A "roadmap discussion document" was presented in May 2016 taking into account the peer-group-consultation described in the Panel's initial report. The "roadmap discussion document" was used to solicit feedback from the neutrino community---and more broadly, the particle- and astroparticle-physics communities---and the various stakeholders in the programme. The roadmap, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this document take into account the comments received following the publication of the roadmap discussion document. With its roadmap the Panel documents the approved objectives and milestones of the experiments that are presently in operation or under construction. Approval, construction and exploitation milestones are presented for experiments that are being considered for approval. The timetable proposed by the proponents is presented for experiments that are not yet being considered formally for approval. Based on this information, the evolution of the precision with which the critical parameters governinger the neutrino are known has been evaluated. Branch or decision points have been identified based on the anticipated evolution in precision. The branch or decision points have in turn been used to identify desirable timelines for the neutrino-nucleus cross section and hadro-production measurements that are required to maximise the integrated scientific output of the programme. The branch points have also been used to identify the timeline for the R&D required to take the programme beyond the horizon of the next generation of experiments. The theory and phenomenology programme, including nuclear theory, required to ensure that maximum benefit is derived from the experimental programme is also discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".