Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Magnetic monopoles

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
G. Giacomelli, L. Patrizii

High Energy Physics - Experiment · Submitted 14 Feb 2000

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim The update concerns theoretical developments, searches for GUT monopoles in the penetrating cosmic radiation at ever lower fluxes, study of the energy losses of MMs in the Earth and in detectors,searches for low mass monopoles, and finally mention byproducts of MM searches.

how it is stated · asserted 0.67 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDhep-ex/0002032 (version 1)
Pith IDCU7POKTZ, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationG. Giacomelli, L. Patrizii. "Magnetic monopoles." arXiv:hep-ex/0002032 (2000). https://pith.science/paper/CU7POKTZ
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,348 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.07 · human participants 0.05 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.11 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

The main aim of this lecture is to give an update on the lectures on Magnetic Monopoles (MMs) of the 1995 Trieste School. The update concerns theoretical developments, searches for GUT monopoles in the penetrating cosmic radiation at ever lower fluxes, study of the energy losses of MMs in the Earth and in detectors,searches for low mass monopoles, and finally mention byproducts of MM searches.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 The main aim of this lecture is to give an update on the lectures on Magnetic Monopoles (MMs) of the 1995 Trieste School. background 0.57 0.12 0.05 asserted 0.92
s1 The update concerns theoretical developments, searches for GUT monopoles in the penetrating cosmic radiation at ever lower fluxes, study of the energy losses of MMs in the Earth and in detectors,searches for low mass monopoles, and finally mention byproducts of MM searches. contribution 0.92 0.19 0.07 asserted 0.67

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 1.00 · evidence from literature 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

The main aim of this lecture is to give an update on the lectures on Magnetic Monopoles (MMs) of the 1995 Trieste School. The update concerns theoretical developments, searches for GUT monopoles in the penetrating cosmic radiation at ever lower fluxes, study of the energy losses of MMs in the Earth and in detectors,searches for low mass monopoles, and finally mention byproducts of MM searches.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.