MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402905874 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2024-0128

Dark matter candidates and searches

2024· article· en· W4402905874 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Nassim Bozorgnia, Joseph Bramante, James M. Cline, David Curtin, David McKeen, David E. Morrissey, Adam Ritz, S. Viel, Aaron C. Vincent, Yue Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace Science and Extraterrestrial Life
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityTRIUMFUniversity of TorontoUniversity of VictoriaMcGill UniversityPerimeter InstituteQueen's UniversityArthur B. McDonald-Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence FundTRIUMF
KeywordsPhysicsDark matterParticle physicsTheoretical physicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Astrophysical observations suggest that most of the matter in the cosmos consists of a new form that has not been observed on Earth. The nature and origin of this mysterious dark matter are among the most pressing questions in fundamental science. In this review, we summarize the current state of dark matter research from two perspectives. First, we provide an overview of the leading theoretical proposals for dark matter. And second, we describe how these proposals have driven a broad and diverse global search program for dark matter involving direct laboratory searches and astrophysical observations. This review is based on a Green Paper on dark matter prepared as part of the 2020 Astroparticle Community Planning initiative undertaken by the Canadian Subatomic Physics community but has been significantly updated to reflect recent advances.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicSpace Science and Extraterrestrial LifeFrench-language works237,207