MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062265200

Search for CP violation in Neutrino and Antineutrino Oscillations by the T2K experiment with $2.2\times10^{21}$ protons on target

2018· article· en· W7062265200 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsches Elektronen-SynchrotronScience and Technology Facilities CouncilInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesMoscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlfred P. Sloan FoundationJoint Institute for Nuclear ResearchJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchRussian Science FoundationMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyCity University of New YorkWestern Canada Research GridDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftCERNCompute CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungEuropean Regional Development FundU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsNeutrinoElectron neutrinoMuon neutrinoNeutrino oscillationMuonCP violationMeasurements of neutrino speed
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The T2K experiment measures muon neutrino disappearance and electron neutrino appearance in accelerator-produced neutrino and antineutrino beams. With an exposure of $14.7(7.6)\times 10^{20}$ protons on target in neutrino (antineutrino) mode, 89 $\nu_e$ candidates and 7 anti-$\nu_e$ candidates were observed while 67.5 and 9.0 are expected for $\delta_{CP}=0$ and normal mass ordering. The obtained $2\sigma$ confidence interval for the $CP$ violating phase, $\delta_{CP}$, does not include the $CP$-conserving cases ($\delta_{CP}=0,\pi$). The best-fit values of other parameters are $\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.526^{+0.032}_{-0.036}$ and $\Delta m^2_{32}=2.463\pm0.065\times10^{-3} \mathrm{eV}^2/c^4$.

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 score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University)Same topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207