Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The proton radius puzzle is known as the discrepancy of the proton radius, obtained from muonic hydrogen spectroscopy (obtained as being roughly equal to 0.84 fm), and the proton radius obtained from (ordinary) hydrogen spectroscopy where a number of measurements involving highly excited states have traditionally favored a value of about 0.88 fm. Recently, a number of measurements of hydrogen transitions by the Munich (Garching) groups (notably, several hyperfine-resolved sublevels of the 2 S –4 P ) and by the group at the University of Toronto (2 S –2 P 1/2 ) have led to transition frequency data consistent with the smaller proton radius of about 0.84 fm. A recent measurement of the 2 S –8 D transition by a group at Colorado State University leads to a proton radius of about 0.86 fm, in between the two aforementioned results. The current situation points to a possible, purely experimental, resolution of the proton radius puzzle. However, a closer look at the situation reveals that the situation may be somewhat less clear, raising the question of whether or not the proton radius puzzle has been conclusively solved, and opening up interesting experimental possiblities at TRIUMF/ARIEL.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".