MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921594263 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/201921902005

The neutron electric dipole moment experiment at the Spallation Neutron Source

2019· article· en· W2921594263 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsUltracold neutronsNeutron electric dipole momentSpallationNeutronPrecessionDipoleElectric dipole momentSpin (aerodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novel experimental techniques are required to make the next big leap in neutron electric dipole moment experimental sensitivity, both in terms of statistics and systematic error control. The nEDM experiment at the Spallation Neutron Source (nEDM@SNS) will implement the scheme of Golub & Lamoreaux [Phys. Rep., 237, 1 (1994)]. The unique properties of combining polarized ultracold neutrons, polarized 3 He, and superfluid 4 He will be exploited to provide a sensitivity to ∼ 10 −28 e · cm. Our cryogenic apparatus will deploy two small (3 L) measurement cells with a high density of ultracold neutrons produced and spin analyzed in situ. The electric field strength, precession time, magnetic shielding, and detected UCN number will all be enhanced compared to previous room temperature Ramsey measurements. Our 3 He co-magnetometer offers unique control of systematic effects, in particular the Bloch-Siegert induced false EDM. Furthermore, there will be two distinct measurement modes: free precession and dressed spin. This will provide an important self-check of our results. Following five years of “critical component demonstration,” our collaboration transitioned to a “large scale integration” phase in 2018. An overview of our measurement techniques, experimental design, and brief updates are described in these proceedings.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207