MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115944179 · doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac2827

International workshop on next generation gamma-ray source

2021· article· en· W3115944179 on OpenAlexaff
C. R. Howell, M. W. Ahmed, Andrei Afanasev, D. Alesini, J. R. M. Annand, A. Aprahamian, D. L. Balabanski, S. Benson, Aaron Bernstein, C. R. Brune, J. Byrd, B.E. Carlsten, A. E. Champagne, S. Chattopadhyay, David P. Davis, E. J. Downie, J. M. Durham, G. Feldman, H. Gao, C. G. R. Geddes, Harald W. Grießhammer, Ryoichi Hajima, Hua Hao, J. Isaak, R. V. F. Janssens, D. P. Kendellen, M. A. Kovash, P. P. Martel, R. Miskimen, B. Pasquini, Daniel R. Phillips, N. Pietralla, D. Savran, Matthias R. Schindler, W. M. Snow, Roxanne P. Springer, Changchun Sun, Chuanxiang Tang, Brian C. Tiburzi, A. P. Tonchev, W. Tornow, C. A. Ur, D. Wang, H. R. Weller, V. Werner, Y. Wu, Zhi Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Beam (structure)Atomic energyComputer scienceSystems engineeringPhysicsEngineeringOpticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A workshop on The Next Generation Gamma-Ray Source sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Physics at the Department of Energy, was held November 17-19, 2016 in Bethesda, Maryland. The goals of the workshop were to identify basic and applied research opportunities at the frontiers of nuclear physics that would be made possible by the beam capabilities of an advanced laser Compton beam facility. To anchor the scientific vision to realistically achievable beam specifications using proven technologies, the workshop brought together experts in the fields of electron accelerators, lasers, and optics to examine the technical options for achieving the beam specifications required by the most compelling parts of the proposed research programs. An international assembly of participants included current and prospective γ -ray beam users, accelerator and light-source physicists, and federal agency program managers. Sessions were organized to foster interactions between the beam users and facility developers, allowing for information sharing and mutual feedback between the two groups. The workshop findings and recommendations are summarized in this whitepaper.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle PhysicsSame topicLaser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207