Probing Emergent Hadronic Mass with Deep Exclusive Meson Production (Slides0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the Standard Model:proton is described by QCD → 3 valence quarks pion also described by QCD → 1 valence quark and 1 valence antiquark ρ meson also described by QCD → 1 valence quark and 1 valence antiquark Here, m ρ (770) ≈ ⅔ m p (938) OK OK Expect m π ≈ ⅔ m p, but instead, m π (140) ≈ 1/7 m p (938), X X Why ~1 GeV proton mass, but ~1/7 GeV pion mass?How is this achieved?Does nature fine tune?Is there something peculiar about the pion (and by logical extension, the kaon)?Are the answers in QCD?Garth Huber, huberg@uregina.ca3 3 3 Contrasts in Hadron Mass Budgets Stark Differences between proton, K + , π + mass budgetsDue to Emergent Hadronic Mass (EHM), Proton mass large in absence of quark couplings to Higgs boson (chiral limit).Conversely, and yet still due to EHM and DCSB, K and π are massless in chiral limit (i.e. they are Goldstone bosons of QCD).The mass budgets of these crucially important particles demand interpretation.Equations of QCD stress that any explanation of the proton's mass is incomplete, unless it simultaneously explains the light masses of QCD's Goldstone bosons, the π and K.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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".