MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964636225 · doi:10.1109/imsna.2013.6742807

Simulator design and lab scale test of a gas filling station for Geiger Muller detectors

2013· article· en· W1964636225 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Bellicoso, R. Machrafi, Lixuan Lu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersAreva
KeywordsSimulationProcess (computing)Interface (matter)DetectorComputer scienceGeiger counterTest benchSet (abstract data type)Current (fluid)EngineeringElectrical engineeringOperating systemEmbedded systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents the creation of a simulator for the Geiger Muller (GM) gas filling station. It simulates the entire gas filling process, from preparing for gas filling by vacuuming out the system to adding in different gases and sealing the detector. The simulator not only demonstrates the overall gas filling process, but also identifies certain steps that can be automated to speed up the process and reduce human error. An easy-to-use human-machine interface is created so that the operator is informed of the current state of the system and the operations that need to be performed manually. A lab scale bench top test is set up to demonstrate the implementation of the automated process. It shows that a Compact RIO system running on real-time environment can be used to communicate with the computer and control a motor. Finally, in order to integrate the simulator with the current gas filling station, the improvements that need to be made on the current station are identified.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207