MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564629296 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2002.1239457

A new surface parameterization for modeling thin layers of reflector material in the DETECT2000 optical modeling program

2004· article· en· W1564629296 on OpenAlexaff
Richard A. Thompson, F. Cayouette, J.W. LeBlanc, S. Zelakiewicz

Bibliographic record

Venue2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttenuationOpticsReflector (photography)Transmission (telecommunications)ScatteringPhotonScintillatorAttenuation coefficientReflection (computer programming)Materials scienceAttenuation lengthComputationTransmission lossDetectorSurface (topology)Computer sciencePhysicsAlgorithmTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new surface parameterization has been implemented in DETECT2000 that allows for the efficient representation of a thin film of reflector material with non-negligible transmission. Material is usually modeled in DETECT by specifying the optical attenuation and scatter lengths. For a material such as Teflon, commonly used as a reflector material for nuclear medicine scintillators, the scatter length can be very short. Modeling the propagation of photons in a material with a very short scattering length can be computationally intensive as there can be many scatter interactions before the photon either exits the material or is absorbed. In a detector design that makes generous use of Teflon, most of the computations can be spent simply transporting photons in the Teflon. To address this issue, a parameterized surface has been implemented which is specified not by the bulk optical scatter and attenuation lengths, but rather by a reflection and transmission coefficient. This allows computationally efficient modeling of thin film reflectors where surface properties and transmission are relevant.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference RecordSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207