MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000731773

First combined analysis of neutrino and antineutrino oscillations at T2K

2017· article· en· W7000731773 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesDeutsches Elektronen-SynchrotronScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchRussian Science FoundationMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyCompute CanadaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueWestern Canada Research GridCERNDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungEuropean Regional Development FundU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsNeutrino oscillationNeutrinoNeutrino detectorRange (aeronautics)DetectorSterile neutrinoSolar neutrino problem
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T2K reports its first results in the search for CP violation in neutrino oscillations using appearance and disappearance channels for neutrino- and antineutrino-mode beam. The data include all runs from Jan 2010 to May 2016 and comprise $7.482\times10^{20}$,protons on target in neutrino mode, which yielded in the far detector 32 e-like and 135 $\mu$-like events, and $7.471\times10^{20}$,protons on target in antineutrino mode which yielded 4 e-like and 66 $\mu$-like events. Reactor measurements of $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}$ have been used as an additional constraint. The one-dimensional confidence interval at 90% for $\delta_{CP}$ spans the range ($-3.13$, $-0.39$) for normal mass ordering. The CP conservation hypothesis ($\delta_{CP}=0,\pi$) is excluded at 90% C.L.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University)Same topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207