MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964061529 · doi:10.1063/1.4914054

A novel experimental approach to investigate radiolysis processes in liquid samples using collimated radiation sources

2015· article· en· W1964061529 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chris Polin, Nathan Wardlow, Harold McQuaid, Philip Orr, Balder Villagomez‐Bernabe, Catarina Figueira, Grace Alexander, Shajeth Srigengan, Émilie Brun, Manon Gilles, Cécile Sicard‐Roselli, F. J. Currell

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastDiamond Light SourceDepartment of Education and Learning, Northern Ireland
KeywordsNozzleCollimated lightShutterMaterials scienceIrradiationSample (material)Nuclear engineeringOpticsBeam (structure)Ionizing radiationSyringeComputer sciencePhysicsChemistryNuclear physicsMechanical engineeringLaserChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here is detailed a novel and low-cost experimental method for high-throughput automated fluid sample irradiation. The sample is delivered via syringe pump to a nozzle, where it is expressed in the form of a hanging droplet into the path of a beam of ionising radiation. The dose delivery is controlled by an upstream lead shutter, which allows the beam to reach the droplet for a user defined period of time. The droplet is then further expressed after irradiation until it falls into one well of a standard microplate. The entire system is automated and can be operated remotely using software designed in-house, allowing for use in environments deemed unsafe for the user (synchrotron beamlines, for example). Depending on the number of wells in the microplate, several droplets can be irradiated before any human interaction is necessary, and the user may choose up to 10 samples per microplate using an array of identical syringe pumps, the design of which is described here. The nozzles consistently produce droplets of 25.1 ± 0.5 μl.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207