Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quark model of hadrons, developed by Gell-Mann and Zweig, began to be taken seriously in the mid to late 1960s. The discovery of scaling in deep inelastic electron–nucleon reactions in the late 1960s seemed to imply that at very short distances, or very high momentum transfers, the nucleon constituents (valence quarks) behaved like weakly interacting point particles. However, the interactions between quarks had to be very strong at long distances, or small momentum transfers, to confine them in hadrons and thus explain the non-observation of isolated quarks. Politzer and Gross and Wilczek, who received the Nobel prize in 2004, showed that the only renormalizable field theory of quarks that had the property of an increasing force at long distance and a decreasing force at short distance was of the type discovered by Yang and Mills. Quarks must be spin-1/2 fermions, with fractional electric charge, and must come in three colors (a new quantum charge akin to electric charge) in order to explain the systematics of hadron spectroscopy. Interactions between quarks are mediated by gluons (the glue which holds them together). Gluons are massless spin-1 bosons, as are photons, but unlike photons they interact among themselves directly (via point interactions) because they also carry a color charge. Such theories are called nonabelian gauge theories. This theory of quarks and gluons, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), is the accepted theory of the strong interactions. Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to make quantitative predictions with QCD, owing to its complexity and peculiar properties. For a more thorough discussion of the history of QCD and its experimental support see Close.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".