MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015505393 · doi:10.82308/31539

Measurement of inclusive production of Charmonium states at BABAR

2001· article· en· W3015505393 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marko Milek

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSLAC National Accelerator LaboratoryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProduction (economics)Particle physicsPhysicsNuclear physicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis presents a study of inclusive production of charmonium mesons at the U (4S) resonance ( s = 10.58 GeV) and in the continuum up to 50 MeV below the resonance. The full dataset of BABAR Run 1 (an integrated luminosity of 23.3 fb-1) is used in the analysis. The branching fractions of B mesons to J/ y , y (2S), cc1 and cc2 are measured: BB→J/yX = (1.044 +/- 0.013 +/- 0.035)%, BB→y2S X = (0.274 +/- 0.020 +/- 0.029)%, BB→cc1X = (0.378 +/- 0.034 +/- 0.026)% and BB→cc2X < 0.21%. By equating the y (2S) production rates calculated using the y (2S) → ℓ+ℓ- final state to those using y (2S) → pi+pi- J/ y , we obtain competitive measurements of the y (2S) → ℓ+ℓ- branching fractions: By2S →e+e- = (0.815 +/- 0.090 +/- 0.090)% and By2S →m+m- = (0.700 +/- 0.083 +/- 0.093)%. The cross-section for J/ y production in e+e - annihilation in the continuum is measured to be: se+e-→J/yX = (2.47 +/- 0.21 +/- 0.20) pb. This cross-section excludes J/ y mesons from B decays, two-photon or initial state radiation processes. An upper limit on the inclusive non-BB¯ J/ y decays of the U (4S) is set at BU4S →J/yX < 5.1 x 10-4, for J/ y with the center of mass momentum above 2 GeV/c. The helicity, the center of mass production angle distribution and the center of mass momentum distribution of the reconstructed J/ y mesons are 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)0.001
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207