Solar Neutrino Zenith Angle Distribution and Uncertainty in Earth Matter Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the error in zenith angle distribution for the charged current events of solar neutrino that originated from uncertainty of earth electron density. Basing on a statistical formulation with 5 % uncertainty and a proper uncertainty length, we found the error is notable for a correlation [N]5/[N]2, [N]2/[N]3. Forthcoming results from Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) [1] will include measurements of the day-night asymmetry (ADN)[2, 3, 5, 4], which would be a proof of the matter conversion solution of the solar neutrino problem. Furthermore, the zenith angle distribution of events during night is expected to give some insight to distinguish different MSW solutions, LMA, LOW and SMA[6]. Since it is the interaction of neutrinos on the Earth-matter electrons that regenerates νe flux, the uncertainty in Earth-matter density and chemical component can be the main error in ADN and the zenith angle distribution. Furthermore, as implicated from the smallness of ADN, the zenith angle distribution is also very delicate, so it necessitates more precise estimation for the errors. In this paper, we will estimate the error that originated from the uncertainty of Earth electron density(EeD), following the suggestion and formulation established in our previous work[7] and [8] to quantify
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".