MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037110420 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.054026

Higher charmonia

2005· article· en· W3037110420 on OpenAlexaff
T. Barnes, Stephen Godfrey, Eric S. Swanson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCERN
KeywordsPhysicsMultipletAmplitudeRadiative transferHarmonic oscillatorHyperfine structureParticle physicsWave functionAtomic physicsHadronCoulombQuantum electrodynamicsNuclear physicsQuantum mechanicsSpectral line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper gives results for the spectrum, all allowed E1 radiative partial widths (and some important M1 widths) and all open-charm strong decay amplitudes of all 40 $c\overline{c}$ states expected up to the mass of the $4\mathrm{S}$ multiplet, just above 4.4 GeV. The spectrum and radiative widths are evaluated using two models, the relativized Godfrey-Isgur model and a nonrelativistic potential model. The electromagnetic transitions are evaluated using Coulomb plus linear plus smeared hyperfine wave functions, both in a nonrelativistic potential model and in the Godfrey-Isgur model. The open-flavor strong decay amplitudes are determined assuming harmonic oscillator wave functions and the ${^{3}\mathrm{P}}_{0}$ decay model. This work is intended to motivate future experimental studies of higher-mass charmonia, and may be useful for the analysis of high-statistics data sets to be accumulated by the BES, CLEO, and GSI facilities.

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)0.002
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.330
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations801
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207