Positioning and timing calibration of SNO+
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory solved the solar neutrino problem, confirming neutri- \nnos have non-zero masses. Massive neutrinos raise questions about the nature of neutrinos, \nimplying physics beyond the standard model and potentially a solution to the observed \nmatter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe. The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory is be- \ning upgraded, with the goal of probing the nature of neutrino masses. The experiment will \nalso study reactor, geo, supernovae and solar neutrinos. The upgrade is characterised by \nchanging the target mass from heavy water to scintillator. Using scintillator allows for the \nlowering of the energy threshold, but this increases sensitivity to backgrounds. To meet \nthe requirements of the physics on detector performance, a detailed optical calibration is \nneeded. Due to increased background sensitivity, a new external LED-based calibration \nsystem has been developed and the existing laser calibration system has been modified \nto meet radiopurity requirements. This thesis describes the the development and imple- \nmentation of both of these calibration systems. With a study of the potential use of the \nLED system to monitor the detector's structure, enabling a better definition of the fiducial \nvolume by reducing the effects of external backgrounds. An assessment of the impact of \nthese systems on the detector performance will be presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".