MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Time-of-flight measurement with the ALPHA-g Barrel Scintillator detector for gravitational studies of anti-matter

2025· article· en· W4410116141 on OpenAlexaff
Gerald A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Instrumentation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScintillatorBarrel (horology)PhysicsNuclear physicsDetectorAlpha (finance)Time of flightOpticsMaterials sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ALPHA-g experiment recently made headlines for the first direct measurement of the gravitational free-fall of anti-hydrogen. Crucial to this milestone is a detector system capable of accurately recording the vertical position of annihilating anti-atoms, with two critical requirements: precise localization of anti-hydrogen annihilations into the “up” or “down” regions, and effective discrimination against the cosmic ray background. To accomplish this, charged pions produced in the annihilation are tracked using a radial time projection chamber detector, and fitted to a common vertex. These pions are also detected by the “Barrel Scintillator” detector, composed of 2.6-meter plastic scintillator bars with silicon photomultipliers at both ends. The arrival time of photons at the silicon photomultipliers is used to determine the time of the pion hitting the bar. This timing information is then used as part of a multivariate analysis to reject externally incident cosmic rays. This poster showcases the time calibration procedure used to obtain time-of-flight measurement of cosmic rays in the Barrel Scintillator, and the background rejection algorithm that will be used for forthcoming ALPHA-g measurements of the gravitational behaviour of anti-hydrogen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of InstrumentationSame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207