MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Database support of detector operation and data analysis in the DEAP-3600 Dark Matter experiment

2019· article· en· W2967984895 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Physical Journal C · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataDetectorDark matterRelational databaseMetric (unit)Metadata repositoryMetadata managementScale (ratio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The DEAP-3600 detector searches for dark matter interactions on a 3.3 tonne liquid argon target. Over nearly a decade, from start of detector construction through the end of the data analysis phase, well over 200 scientists will have contributed to the project. The DEAP-3600 detector will amass in excess of 900 TB of data representing more than 10 $$^{10}$$ particle interactions, a few of which could be from dark matter. At the same time, metadata exceeding 80 GB will be generated. This metadata is crucial for organizing and interpreting the dark matter search data and contains both structured and unstructured information. The scale of the data collected, the important role of metadata in interpreting it, the number of people involved, and the long lifetime of the project necessitate an industrialized approach to metadata management. We describe how the CouchDB and the PostgreSQL database systems were integrated into the DEAP detector operation and analysis workflows. This integration provides unified, distributed access to both structured (PostgreSQL) and unstructured (CouchDB) metadata at runtime of the data analysis software. It also supports operational and reporting requirements.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.011

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueThe European Physical Journal CSame topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207