MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Proton Compton Scattering from Linearly Polarized Gamma Rays

2022· article· en· W4220685521 on OpenAlexafffund
X. Li, M. W. Ahmed, A. Banu, C. Bartram, B. J. Crowe, E. J. Downie, M. Emamian, G. J. Feldman, H. Gao, D. Godagama, Harald W. Grießhammer, C. R. Howell, H. J. Karwowski, D. P. Kendellen, M. A. Kovash, K. K. H. Leung, D. M. Markoff, Judith A. McGovern, S. Mikhailov, R. E. Pywell, M. H. Sikora, Jack Silano, R. S. Sosa, M. Spraker, G. Swift, P. Wallace, H. R. Weller, C. S. Whisnant, Y. Wu, Zheng Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeorge Washington UniversityU.S. Department of EnergyColumbian College of Arts and Sciences, George Washington UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsCompton scatteringProtonScatteringAtomic physicsGamma rayPhotonDipoleNuclear physicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Differential cross sections for Compton scattering from the proton have been measured at scattering angles of 55\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}, 90\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}, and 125\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{} in the laboratory frame using quasimonoenergetic linearly (circularly) polarized photon beams with a weighted mean energy value of 83.4 MeV (81.3 MeV). These measurements were performed at the High Intensity Gamma-Ray Source facility at the Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory. The results are compared to previous measurements and are interpreted in the chiral effective field theory framework to extract the electromagnetic dipole polarizabilities of the proton, which gives ${\ensuremath{\alpha}}_{E1}^{p}=13.8\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}1.{2}_{\mathrm{stat}}\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.{1}_{\mathrm{BSR}}\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.{3}_{\mathrm{theo}},{\ensuremath{\beta}}_{M1}^{p}=0.2\ensuremath{\mp}1.{2}_{\mathrm{stat}}\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.{1}_{\mathrm{BSR}}\ensuremath{\mp}0.{3}_{\mathrm{theo}}$ in units of ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}4}\text{ }\text{ }{\mathrm{fm}}^{3}$.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersFrench-language works237,207