MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608870749 · doi:10.2172/814478

RAD/COMM ''Cricket'' Test Report

2002· report· en· W1608870749 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Chiaro

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUT-BattelleBattelleU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsOak Ridge National LaboratoryCricketElectromagnetic shieldingNuclear engineeringRadiation monitoringTest siteRadiological weaponEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPhysicsRadiochemistryNuclear physicsElectrical engineeringChemistryMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of tests were performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate and characterize the radiological response of a ''Cricket'' radiation detection system. The ''Cricket'' is manufactured by RAD/COMM Systems Corp., which is located in Ontario, Canada. The system is designed to detect radioactive material that may be contained in scrap metal. The Cricket's detection unit is mounted to the base of a grappler and monitors material, while the grappler's tines hold the material. It can also be used to scan material in an attempt to isolate radioactive material if an alarm occurs. Testing was performed at the Environmental Effects Laboratory located at ORNL and operated by the Engineering Science and Technology Division. Tests performed included the following: (1) Background stability, (2) Energy response using {sup 241}Am, {sup 137}Cs, and {sup 60}Co, (3) Surface uniformity, (4) Angular dependence, (5) Alarm actuation, (6) Alarm threshold vs. background, (7) Shielding, (8) Response to {sup 235}U, (9) Response to neutrons using unmoderated {sup 252}Cf, and (10) Response to transient radiation. This report presents a summary of the test results. Background measurements were obtained prior to the performance of each individual test.

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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207