Does CodeCarbon report energy consumption per core or per socket?

II have been working with a High-Performance Computing Cluster (HPCC) for my master’s project, and I have a question.
It turns out that the cluster uses HTCondor to schedule jobs.
Currently, I'm using an Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5220R CPU @ 2.20GHz with cpu_count = 96.
And if I run:
lscpu
the output is:

# Output of running lscpu
Architecture:                         x86_64
CPU op-mode(s):                       32-bit, 64-bit
Address sizes:                        46 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
Byte Order:                           Little Endian
CPU(s):                               96
On-line CPU(s) list:                  0-95
Vendor ID:                            GenuineIntel
Model name:                           Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5220R CPU @ 2.20GHz
CPU family:                           6
Model:                                85
Thread(s) per core:                   2
Core(s) per socket:                   24
Socket(s):                            2
Stepping:                             7
BogoMIPS:                             4400.00
Flags:                                fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc art arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc cpuid aperfmperf pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 sdbg fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid dca sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm 3dnowprefetch cpuid_fault epb cat_l3 cdp_l3 intel_ppin ssbd mba ibrs ibpb stibp ibrs_enhanced tpr_shadow flexpriority ept vpid ept_ad fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid cqm mpx rdt_a avx512f avx512dq rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb intel_pt avx512cd avx512bw avx512vl xsaveopt xsavec xgetbv1 xsaves cqm_llc cqm_occup_llc cqm_mbm_total cqm_mbm_local dtherm ida arat pln pts vnmi pku ospke avx512_vnni md_clear flush_l1d arch_capabilities
Virtualization:                       VT-x
L1d cache:                            1.5 MiB (48 instances)
L1i cache:                            1.5 MiB (48 instances)
L2 cache:                             48 MiB (48 instances)
L3 cache:                             71.5 MiB (2 instances)
NUMA node(s):                         4
NUMA node0 CPU(s):                    0,4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,48,52,56,60,64,68,72,76,80,84,88,92
NUMA node1 CPU(s):                    1,5,9,13,17,21,25,29,33,37,41,45,49,53,57,61,65,69,73,77,81,85,89,93
NUMA node2 CPU(s):                    2,6,10,14,18,22,26,30,34,38,42,46,50,54,58,62,66,70,74,78,82,86,90,94
NUMA node3 CPU(s):                    3,7,11,15,19,23,27,31,35,39,43,47,51,55,59,63,67,71,75,79,83,87,91,95
Vulnerability Gather data sampling:   Mitigation; Microcode
Vulnerability Itlb multihit:          KVM: Mitigation: VMX disabled
Vulnerability L1tf:                   Not affected
Vulnerability Mds:                    Not affected
Vulnerability Meltdown:               Not affected
Vulnerability Mmio stale data:        Mitigation; Clear CPU buffers; SMT vulnerable
Vulnerability Reg file data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Retbleed:               Mitigation; Enhanced IBRS
Vulnerability Spec rstack overflow:   Not affected
Vulnerability Spec store bypass:      Mitigation; Speculative Store Bypass disabled via prctl
Vulnerability Spectre v1:             Mitigation; usercopy/swapgs barriers and __user pointer sanitization
Vulnerability Spectre v2:             Mitigation; Enhanced / Automatic IBRS; IBPB conditional; RSB filling; PBRSB-eIBRS SW sequence; BHI SW loop, KVM SW loop
Vulnerability Srbds:                  Not affected
Vulnerability Tsx async abort:        Mitigation; TSX disabled

I am especially concerned about this:

Thread(s) per core:                   2
Core(s) per socket:                   24
Socket(s):                            2

This indicates the presence of 2 sockets, each containing 24 cores, with each core supporting 2 threads.

I assume, then, that CodeCarbon reads data at the socket level and does not have direct access to per-core granularity. Is that correct? So, if I’m sharing some of these cores, would I be measuring the energy consumption of other people's processes as well?

Start with CodeCarbon's CPU energy-measurement path and the Linux lscpu output described in the issue. Determine whether measurements are socket-wide or scoped to cores, processes, or scheduler allocations, then document whether shared cores can include other users' work and how HTCondor affects the result.