MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000403776

Evidence for D0-DÌ0 mixing

2007· article· en· W7000403776 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSLAC National Accelerator LaboratoryInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionInstitute of High Energy PhysicsCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlfred P. Sloan FoundationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMixing (physics)Measure (data warehouse)DetectorMixing ratioLinear particle accelerator
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present evidence for D0-D̄0 mixing in D0→K+π- decays from 384fb-1 of e+e- colliding-beam data recorded near s=10.6GeV with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II storage rings at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. We find the mixing parameters x′2=[-0.22±0.30(stat)±0. 21(syst)]×10-3 and y′=[9.7±4.4(stat)±3.1(syst)] ×10-3 and a correlation between them of -0.95. This result is inconsistent with the no-mixing hypothesis with a significance of 3.9 standard deviations. We measure RD, the ratio of doubly Cabibbo-suppressed to Cabibbo-favored decay rates, to be [0.303±0.016(stat)±0.010(syst)]%. We find no evidence for CP violation. © 2007 The American Physical Society.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207