MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978681057 · doi:10.1118/1.3476130

Poster — Thur Eve — 25: Improving the Accuracy of Electrometer Calibrations

2010· article· en· W1978681057 on OpenAlexaff
B Downton

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrometerCalibrationCapacitorElectrical engineeringResistorPhysicsEngineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many years, the Ionizing Radiation Standards (IRS) group, NRC, has maintained the capacity to calibrate high‐quality electrometers used for radiation therapy. In particular, electrometer calibrations have now become a necessary part of the recently introduced MV X‐ray calibration service. With a growing interest in electrometer calibrations, the IRS electrometer calibration facility was due for revamping and upgrading. In 2008, instability in the IRS electrometer calibration system was observed during a period of high humidity. Troubleshooting suggested that the high humidity was causing high leakage currents, but it was difficult to obtain evidence of leakage occurring at any specific location since the leakage currents were small (pA or even fA). Desiccation of the calibrated standard capacitors dramatically improved the overall system performance, so the eventual solution involved isolation of the calibrated standard capacitors using a humidity controlled cabinet. Additional improvements included changing most of the connectors in the system from coaxial BNC to two‐lug triaxial bayonet type (TRB), and designing a 3‐stage filter to allow calibrations of newer current‐based electrometers. The result is an electrometer calibration facility that is unaffected by humidity and very stable, allowing year‐round calibrations for any of the electrometer models commonly encountered.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207