MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996725049 · doi:10.1118/1.3182557

WE‐E‐BRD‐05: EGSnrc Benchmarking Against High‐Precision Lateral Distributions of X‐Rays Produced in Thick Targets

2009· article· en· W1996725049 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C Cojocaru, C. K. Ross, M McEwen, Bruce Faddegon

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonization chamberPhysicsAbsorbed doseIonizationBeam (structure)Monte Carlo methodCathode rayElectronRange (aeronautics)DosimetryAtomic physicsMaterials scienceLinear particle acceleratorOpticsNuclear medicineRadiationNuclear physicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The EGSnrc Monte Carlo code was benchmarked against newly measured angular distributions of x‐rays produced by electron beams stopping in thick targets. Method and Materials: The electron beam was generated using the National Research Council Canada (NRC) Vickers linear accelerator. Five materials: Be, Al, Cu, Ta and Pb, were used as targets and measurements were made at 20 MeV. The absolute absorbed dose was measured at different lateral positions with various ionization chambers (PTW 30013, Exradin A19, and NE2505/3) using various build‐up caps made of PMMA, Brass, Cu, Sn and W alloy. The BEAMnrc code was used to simulate the experimental setup. The geometry, beam and material properties were implemented in BEAMnrc, while the “cavity” user code was used to score the absorbed dose in the ionization chamber air cavity per incident electron up to angles of 25°. Results: For medium‐Z targets the shape agreement between measured and simulated distributions is better than 1 % for the entire scanning range. In terms of absolute dose, it was found that there are differences of up to 4 % related to the build‐up caps used for the ionization chamber. When considering the five targets, a trend with Z of the target material is noticed. For medium‐Z targets the ratio of calculated to measured dose has a variation below 1 %, for the Be target the ratio increases 12 % with the scanning position, while for the Pb target the ratio decreases 5 %. Conclusion: The present study shows that the EGSnrc code predicts x‐ray angular distributions with shapes in agreement with the measured data at the 1 % level for medium‐Z targets. There are still unresolved discrepancies in the absolute dose related to the build‐up cap used for the ionization chamber and the target material. Partial support from NIH R01 CA104777‐01A2.

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 score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207