MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6947751481 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-ph/0309079

Constraints on Neutrino Parameters from Neutral-Current Solar Neutrino Measurements

2003· preprint· en· W6947751481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2003
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicWood and Agarwood Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutrinoSolar neutrinoNeutrino oscillationMixing (physics)Solar neutrino problemStatistical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We generalize the pull approach to define the $χ^2$ function to the analysis of the data with correlated statistical errors. We apply this method to the analysis of the Sudbury Neutrino Collaboration data obtained in the salt-phase. In the global analysis of all the solar neutrino and KamLAND data we find the best fit (minimum $χ^2$) values of neutrino parameters to be $\tan^2 θ_{12} \sim 0.42$ and $δm_{12}^2 \sim 7.1 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$. We confirm that the maximal mixing is strongly disfavored while the bounds on $δm_{12}^2$ are significantly strengthened.

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)0.015
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.060 · 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
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicWood and Agarwood ResearchFrench-language works237,207