$α_s$ in 2016 from the (revised) ALEPH data for $τ$ decay
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Theoretical or conceptualConsensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.187
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.729
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
We summarize a comparison of the two strategies which are currently available in the literature for determining the value of s (m ). 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.
The record
- Venue
- Proceedings of 38th International Conference on High Energy Physics — PoS(ICHEP2016)
- Topic
- Particle physics theoretical and experimental studies
- Field
- Physics and Astronomy
- Canadian institutions
- York University
- Funders
- Natural 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
- Keywords
- AlephOperator (biology)Product (mathematics)Computer scienceValue (mathematics)Duality (order theory)PhysicsMathematicsParticle physicsDiscrete mathematicsMachine learning
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes