Second 2005 Intermediate Report of the HHH Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the second quarter of 2005 the activity of CARE-HHH continued being devoted to provide the planned deliverables and to clarify the additional networking aspects introduced in the first quarter of 2005, aiming at the optimal use of the existing European hadron accelerator facilities at CERN and GSI.The list of tasks accomplished is given below in chronological sequence. Overall CARE-HHH Network activities in the Second Quarter 2005o April 2005: second meeting on LHC upgrade with ATLAS and CMS physicists ( 8participants).Items discussed: possible IR upgrade scenarios and implementation, request for identification of a team to estimate the effects of high luminosity interaction debris on the superconducting triplets.o May 2005: second meeting of the Pulsed Magnet Working Group with 19 participants (see minutes http://pmwg.web.cern.ch/PMWG/2nd%20meeting.htm ).The main goals were: o To define an inventory of resources (tooling and personnel) that may become available.o To review the present activity and identify possible synergies within presently available resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.065 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".