MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956496052 · doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab3a88

Colliding Pomerons

2019· article· en· W2956496052 on OpenAlexaff
V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin, M. G. Ryskin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPomeronPhysicsParticle physicsGlueballRapidityNuclear physicsMultiplicity (mathematics)High energyFermilabMesonHadronGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We recall the main properties of inclusive particle distributions expected for Pomeron-proton and Pomeron–Pomeron interactions. Due to the small size of the Pomeron we expect larger transverse momenta of secondaries and a smaller probability of multiple interactions, that is a narrower multiplicity distribution. We propose to compare the spectra of secondaries produced in the Pomeron and the proton interactions in terms of the Feynman x F variable. The main difference should be observed for a relatively large x F , that is near the edge of rapidity gaps. Such data offer the opportunity to illuminate the properties of the ‘soft’ or ‘Regge’ Pomeron, which drives the minimum-bias type of events in high energy pp interactions. Besides this, there should be a good opportunity to observe a glueball in the Pomeron fragmentation region.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations1
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