MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1563232415 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2001.1009696

Assessment of reflective separator films for small crystal arrays

2005· article· en· W1563232415 on OpenAlexaff
C. Pépin, P. Bérard, Roger Lecomte

Bibliographic record

Venue2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (Cat. No.01CH37310) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceOpticsScintillationOptoelectronicsPhotodiodeOpacityDetectorSeparator (oil production)PixelPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thin, highly reflective, opaque separators are required to assemble compact arrays of small discrete scintillation crystals used in conjunction with photodiode array readouts in high-resolution imaging applications. Mechanical stability, individual detector performance, and ease of handling for wrapping crystals are the main factors to be considered in the choice of a suitable separator. Three different types of reflective materials were tested with 4/spl times/4 arrays of LSO, BGO and GSO: Tyvek 1058D paper, Toray Lumirror E60L Polyester Film, and 3M VM2000 Radiant Light Film. The light output and intrinsic energy resolution of individual crystals were measured as a function of their position in the arrays and the results were compared to simulation of light collection efficiency obtained with DETECT97. Optical crosstalk between adjacent and diagonal pixels was evaluated. The Lumirror film consistently yielded superior results with BGO. With LSO and GSO, the 3M reflector was found to provide slightly better light output and energy resolution. Despite the sharp cutoff in spectral reflectivity at 400 nm with this reflector, the crosstalk between adjacent LSO crystals was not found to be significant.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (Cat. No.01CH37310)Same topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207