The Case for an EIC Theory Alliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This documents outlines the case for the creation of an EIC Theory Alliance. The EIC will be a unique and versatile facility that will enable the understanding of some of the most compelling questions in the physics of the strong nuclear force. To fully exploit the potential of the EIC, a focused theory effort will be required. The goal of the EIC Theory Alliance is to provide support and stewardship of the theory effort in EIC physics, broadly defined, over the lifetime of the facility. It will promote EIC theory and contribute to workforce development through: support of graduate students; EIC Theory Fellowships for postdocs; bridge positions at universities; and short and long term visitor programs to enhance collaboration between groups. In addition, the alliance will organize topical schools and workshops. The EIC Theory Alliance will be a decentralized organization, open to participation by anyone in the community who is interested in EIC physics, i.e., it will be a membership organization, where members elect an executive board which will effectively run the alliance. The executive board will determine the major scientific thrusts of the theory alliance, make decisions regarding at which universities bridge faculty positions will be created, and serve as a search committee for EIC-related positions. Furthermore, the executive board will coordinate the organization of workshops and schools related to the research activities of the alliance. In addition, the EIC theory alliance will seek out and nurture international cooperation to maximally leverage the available funding. The EIC theory alliance has a wider range of physics goals and longer lifetime, commensurate with that of the EIC research program, than individual nuclear theory topical collaborations. The structure of the EIC Theory Alliance will build on previous examples of successful alliances in nuclear theory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".