MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964098133 · doi:10.1063/1.1445821

Design and performance of the double crystal monochromator beamline at the Canadian Light Source

2002· article· en· W1964098133 on OpenAlexaffabout
B. Yates, Emil Hallin

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced X-ray Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonochromatorOpticsFull width at half maximumMaterials sciencePhoton energyBeamlinePhysicsPhotonBeam (structure)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The medium energy x-ray double crystal monochromator (DCM) is currently being designed at the Canadian Light Source (CLS). Design goals for the DCM are to provide photons between 1750–5500 eV with a resolving power better than 3000 and photon flux better than 5×1010 photons/s/0.1% bandwidth for 500 mA beam current. A set of indium antimonide crystals [InSb(111)] will be used over the energy range of 1750–3700 eV, with resolution ranging from 0.52–1.05 eV. Although InSb allows one to probe the important silicon K edge at ∼1840 eV, it has the disadvantage of poor thermal conductivity. Exposure to high heat loads from the CLS synchrotron on the first crystal (∼56.5 W of power for 2 mrad of horizontal bending magnet radiation, ∼0.54 W/mm2 power density) will cause crystal distortion and thereby intensity/resolution degradation. A second set of silicon crystals [Si(111)] are proposed for the energy range of 3700–5500 eV. Resolution ranges linearly from ∼0.41 to ∼0.70 eV over this energy range. A harmonic filter mirror has been included in the design to reject higher harmonic orders. SHADOW ray-tracing results show that the experimental focus should be 334 μm [horizontal full width at half-maximum (FWHM)]×296 μm (vertical FWHM) when the CLS is operational under 2008 conditions.

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 score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicAdvanced X-ray Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207