MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An alternative method of determining the neutrino mass ordering in reactor neutrino experiments

2017· article· en· W2949656232 on OpenAlexaff
S. M. Bilenky, Francesco Capozzi, S.T. Petcov

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Letters B · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNeutrino Physics Research
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsRussian Foundation for Fundamental InvestigationsHorizon 2020Instituto Nazionale di Fisica NucleareMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsNeutrinoPhysicsNuclear physicsSterile neutrinoParticle physicsSensitivity (control systems)Neutrino oscillationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss a novel alternative method of determining the neutrino mass ordering in medium baseline experiments with reactor antineutrinos. Results on the potential sensitivity of the new method are also presented.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics Letters BSame topicNeutrino Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207