MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911271847 · doi:10.2172/1527401

The International Linear Collider: A Global Project

2019· preprint· en· W2911271847 on OpenAlexfundno aff
P. Bambade

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNuclear PhysicsJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceThomas Jefferson National Accelerator FacilityDeutsches Elektronen-SynchrotronScience and Technology Facilities CouncilHelmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-RossendorfGeneralitat ValencianaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftTRIUMFFermilabU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsInternational Linear ColliderHiggs bosonPhysicsParticle physicsLarge Hadron ColliderColliderBosonNuclear physicsDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Linear Collider (ILC) is now under consideration as the next global project in particle physics. In this report, we review of all aspects of the ILC program: the physics motivation, the accelerator design, the run plan, the proposed detectors, the experimental measurements on the Higgs boson, the top quark, the couplings of the W and Z bosons, and searches for new particles. We review the important role that polarized beams play in the ILC program. The first stage of the ILC is planned to be a Higgs factory at 250 GeV in the centre of mass. Energy upgrades can naturally be implemented based on the concept of a linear collider. We discuss in detail the ILC program of Higgs boson measurements and the expected precision in the determination of Higgs couplings. We compare the ILC capabilities to those of the HL-LHC and to those of other proposed e+e- Higgs factories. We emphasize throughout that the readiness of the accelerator and the estimates of ILC performance are based on detailed simulations backed by extensive RandD and, for the accelerator technology, operational experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations184
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207