MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799334418 · doi:10.22323/1.282.0620

$α_s$ in 2016 from the (revised) ALEPH data for $τ$ decay

2017· article· en· W2799334418 on OpenAlexafffund
Santiago Peris, Diogo Boito, Maarten Golterman, Kim Maltman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of 38th International Conference on High Energy Physics — PoS(ICHEP2016) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOffice of ScienceConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoHigh Energy PhysicsFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAlephOperator (biology)Product (mathematics)Computer scienceValue (mathematics)Duality (order theory)PhysicsMathematicsParticle physicsDiscrete mathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We summarize a comparison of the two strategies which are currently available in the literature for determining the value of α s (m τ ).We will refer to these as the truncated Operator Product Expansion model and the Duality Violation model.After describing the main features of both approaches, we explain why the former fails to pass crucial tests.The latter, on the other hand, passes all the tests known up to date and, therefore, should be currently considered the only reliable method.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of 38th International Conference on High Energy Physics — PoS(ICHEP2016)Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207