MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data preservation in high energy physics

2023· article· en· W3047079659 on OpenAlexaff
T. Basaglia, M. Bellis, J. Blomer, J. Boyd, C. Bozzi, D. Britzger, S. Campana, C. Cartaro, Guo-Ming Chen, B. Couturier, G. David, C. Diaconu, A. Dobrin, D. Duellmann, M. Ebert, P. Elmer, Jordannia Oliveira Fernandes, L. Fields, P. Fokianos, G. Ganis, A. Geiser, M. Gheata, J. B. Gonzalez Lopez, T. Hara, L. Heinrich, M. Hildreth, K. Herner, B. Jayatilaka, M. Kado, O. Keeble, A. Kohls, K. Naim, C. Lange, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Levonian, M. Maggi, Z. Marshall, P. Mato Vila, A. Mečionis, A. Morris, S. Piano, M. Potekhin, M. Schröder, U. Schwickerath, E. Sexton-Kennedy, Tibor Šimko, T. J. Smith, D. South, A. Verbytskyi, M. Vidal, A. Vivace, Lemin Wang, G. Watt, T. Wenaus

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Physical Journal C · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Data scienceTerm (time)Computer sciencePlan (archaeology)Risk analysis (engineering)Management scienceEngineeringPhysicsBusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Data preservation is a mandatory specification for any present and future experimental facility and it is a cost-effective way of doing fundamental research by exploiting unique data sets in the light of the continuously increasing theoretical understanding. This document summarizes the status of data preservation in high energy physics. The paradigms and the methodological advances are discussed from a perspective of more than ten years of experience with a structured effort at international level. The status and the scientific return related to the preservation of data accumulated at large collider experiments are presented, together with an account of ongoing efforts to ensure long-term analysis capabilities for ongoing and future experiments. Transverse projects aimed at generic solutions, most of which are specifically inspired by open science and FAIR principles, are presented as well. A prospective and an action plan are also indicated.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.021
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe European Physical Journal CSame topicAdvanced Data Storage TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207