MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911693790 · doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab4cd2

Physics beyond colliders at CERN: beyond the Standard Model working group report

2019· article· en· W2911693790 on OpenAlexaff
J. B. Beacham, Clare Burrage, David Curtin, A. De Roeck, Jared A. Evans, Jonathan L. Feng, C. Gatto, S. Gninenko, A. Hartin, I.G. Irastorza, Joerg Jaeckel, K. Jungmann, K. Kirch, Felix Kling, Simon Knapen, M. Lamont, G. Lanfranchi, C. Lazzeroni, A. Lindner, F. Martínez-Vidal, M. Moulson, N. Néri, Michele Papucci, I. Pedraza, K. Petridis, M. Pospelov, A. Rozanov, G. Ruoso, Philip Schuster, Yannis K. Semertzidis, T. Spadaro, C. Vallée, G. Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilGeneralitat ValencianaEuropean Commission
KeywordsLarge Hadron ColliderPhysicsPhysics beyond the Standard ModelParticle physicsGroup (periodic table)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Physics Beyond Colliders initiative is an exploratory study aimed at exploiting the full scientific potential of the CERN’s accelerator complex and scientific infrastructures through projects complementary to the LHC and other possible future colliders. These projects will target fundamental physics questions in modern particle physics. This document presents the status of the proposals presented in the framework of the Beyond Standard Model physics working group, and explore their physics reach and the impact that CERN could have in the next 10–20 years on the international landscape.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations507
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle PhysicsSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207