MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974352881 · doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/07/p07012

Optical characterization of RTV615 silicone rubber compound

2014· article· en· W1974352881 on OpenAlexaff
W Li, G. M. Huber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Instrumentation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceWavelengthSilicone rubberAdhesivePhotomultiplierUltravioletAbsorption (acoustics)SiliconeOpticsCuring (chemistry)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialDetectorOptoelectronicsChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Room Temperature Vulcanized (RTV) silicone compounds are commonly used to bond optical components. For our application, we needed to identify an adhesive with good ultraviolet transmission characteristics, to couple photomultipliers to quartz windows in a Heavy Gas Cerenkov detector that is being constructed for Experimental Hall C of Jefferson Lab to provide pi/K separation up to 11 GeV/c. To this end, we present the light transmission results for Momentive RTV615 silicone rubber compound for wavelengths between 195-400 nm, obtained with an adapted reflectivity apparatus at Jefferson Lab. All samples cured at room temperature have transmissions ~93% for wavelengths between 360-400 nm and fall sharply below 230 nm. Wavelength dependent absorption coefficients were extracted with four samples of different thicknesses cured at normal temperature (25oC for 7 days). The absorption coefficient drops approximately two orders in magnitude from 220-400 nm, exhibiting distinct regions of flattening near 250 nm and 330 nm. We also investigated the effect of a high temperature curing method (100oC for 1 hour) and found 5-10% better transmission than with the normal method. The effect was more significant with larger sample thickness (3.35 mm) over the wavelength range of 220-280 nm.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
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 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of InstrumentationSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207