Nuclear Physics Exascale Requirements Review: An Office of Science Review sponsored jointly by Advanced Scientific Computing Research and Nuclear Physics, June 15 - 17, 2016, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagine being able to predict — with unprecedented accuracy and precision — the structure of the proton and neutron, and the forces between them, directly from the dynamics of quarks and gluons, and then using this information in calculations of the structure and reactions of atomic nuclei and of the properties of dense neutron stars (NSs). Also imagine discovering new and exotic states of matter, and new laws of nature, by being able to collect more experimental data than we dream possible today, analyzing it in real time to feed back into an experiment, and curating the data with full tracking capabilities and with fully distributed data mining capabilities. Making this vision a reality would improve basic scientific understanding, enabling us to precisely calculate, for example, the spectrum of gravity waves emitted during NS coalescence, and would have important societal applications in nuclear energy research, stockpile stewardship, and other areas. This review presents the components and characteristics of the exascale computing ecosystems necessary to realize this vision.
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it