MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1571524464 · doi:10.2172/839599

Electronics Packaging Issues for Future Accelerators and Experiments

2004· report· en· W1571524464 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R Larsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiation Effects in Electronics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyNational Institute for Materials ScienceTRIUMF
KeywordsStandardizationModular designElectronicsSystems engineeringDetectorMetric (unit)Key (lock)Computer scienceEngineeringReliability engineeringManufacturing engineeringSoftware engineeringElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsOperating systemOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standard instrument modules for physics reached their zenith of industrial development from the early 1960s through late 1980s. Started by laboratory engineering groups in Europe and North America, modular electronic standards were successfully developed and commercialized. In the late 1980's a major shift in large detector design toward custom chips mounted directly on detectors started a decline in the use of standard modules for data acquisition. With the loss of the detector module business, commercial support declined. Today the engineering communities supporting future accelerators and experiments face a new set of challenges that demand much more reliable system design. The dominant system metric is Availability. We propose (1) that future accelerator and detector systems be evaluated against a Design for Availability (DFA) metric; (2) that modular design and standardization applied to all electronic and controls subsystems are key to high Availability; and (3) that renewed Laboratory-Industry collaboration(s) could make an invaluable contribution to design and implementation.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiation Effects in ElectronicsFrench-language works237,207