MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572431918 · doi:10.1063/1.1499536

Photon detection with <i>n</i>-propanol and C2H6O isomers

2002· article· en· W1572431918 on OpenAlexafffund
Josh Lipton‐Duffin, Andrew G. Mark, A. B. McLean

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDetectorBand-pass filterIonizationPhysicsPhotonAtomic physicsElectronPhoton energyOpticsPhoton countingMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsIonNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate that a Geiger–Müller-type bandpass photon detector, suitable for inverse photoemission experiments, can be constructed from a MgF2 entrance window that has a high-energy transmission threshold of 10.97 eV, and ethanol, a detection gas with an ionization potential of 10.48 eV. The photon detector has a mean detection energy of ℏωd=(10.89±0.07) eV and a bandpass of Δℏωd=(0.37±0.05) eV. A photon detector can also be constructed from n-propanol/MgF2 with a mean detection energy of ℏωd=(10.76±0.07) eV and a bandpass Δℏωd=(0.41±0.05) eV. These two new detection gas/window combinations have a higher detection energy and a narrower bandpass than the dimethylether/MgF2 detector [Δℏωd=(0.71±0.04) eV and ℏωd=10.60 eV]. Since all three detectors utilize a MgF2 entrance window, the photon bandpass can be changed straightforwardly by changing the detection gas. For systems that can be easily damaged by electron beams, having the freedom to open up the detector bandpass is an advantage because it can reduce the total electron exposure time.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207