MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099339819

Preprint typeset in JHEP style- HYPER VERSION McGill-03/17 Phenomenological Constraints on Extra-Dimensional Scalars

2004· article· en· W7099339819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitonMissing energyTop quarkPreprintLarge Hadron ColliderGluonPlanckBosonAtlas detector
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: We examine whether the ATLAS detector has sensitivity to extradimensional scalars (as opposed to components of higher-dimensional tensors which look like 4D scalars), in scenarios having the extra-dimensional Planck scale in the TeV range and n ≥ 2 nonwarped extra dimensions. Such scalars appear as partners of the graviton in virtually all higher-dimensional supersymmetric theories. Using the scalar’s lowest-dimensional effective couplings to quarks and gluons, we compute the rate for the production of a hard jet together with missing energy. We find a nontrivial range of graviscalar couplings to which ATLAS could be sensitive, with experiments being more sensitive to couplings to gluons than to quarks. Graviscalar emission increases the missing-energy signal by adding to graviton production, and so complicates the inference of the extra-dimensional Planck scale from an observed rate. Because graviscalar differential cross sections resemble those for gravitons, it is unlikely that these can be experimentally distinguished from one another should a missing energy signal be observed. – 1 –

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2170.016

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health Research Topics→French-language works237,207→