MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2969483072 · doi:10.22323/1.346.0008

Final Results from the Jefferson Lab Qweak Experiment and Constraints on Physics Beyond the Standard Model

2019· article· en· W2969483072 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Greg Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of 23rd International Spin Physics Symposium — PoS(SPIN2018) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTRIUMF
KeywordsAsymmetryPhysicsPhysics beyond the Standard ModelParticle physicsStandard Model (mathematical formulation)ProtonCharge (physics)Nuclear physicsSensitivity (control systems)Weinberg angleLeptonEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Qweak ep elastic scattering experiment used to extract an asymmetry at Q^2 = 0.0248 GeV^2 will be described. The final result was −226.5 ± 9.3 ppb- the most precise ep asymmetry ever measured. Some of the backgrounds and corrections applied in the experiment will be explained and quantified, and some of the experimental challenges will be described. Several methods used to extract consistent values of the proton’s weak charge Q_w(p) from our asymmetry measurement will be outlined. We also show the multi-TeV mass reach for beyond-the-Standard-Model physics obtained from our determination of the proton’s weak charge, and discuss our sensitivity to specific examples of new physics like compositeness. From the proton’s weak charge, a result for the fundamental standard model parameter sin^2θ_W is obtained at the energy scale of our experiment. We compare that to the few other determinations of sin^2θ_W available in the literature, as well as the predicted behaviour based on SM input.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of 23rd International Spin Physics Symposium — PoS(SPIN2018)→Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies→French-language works237,207→