MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006663990 · doi:10.1117/12.849533

Feasibility of bulk explosives detection using photoneutron spectroscopy

2010· article· en· W2006663990 on OpenAlexafffund
John E. McFee, Anthony A. Faust, Kyle Pastor

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsNeutronPhysicsNeutron stimulated emission computed tomographyNeutron temperatureNuclear physicsNeutron sourceNeutron detectionSpectrometerNeutron scatteringBonner sphereGamma rayNeutron cross sectionPhotonOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has been conducted since the 1950s on nuclear methods to confirm the presence of bulk explosives by detecting characteristic emitted radiation. In most practical situations, penetrating radiation is required, which restricts the problem to gamma rays and neutrons. The most successful reactions to date has been radiative thermal neutron capture (thermal neutron analysis) and prompt radiative emission following inelastic fast neutron scattering (fast neutron analysis). An alternative to these neutron-in, gamma ray-out reactions is photoneutron production. A gamma ray whose energy exceeds the threshold for neutron production in a particular atomic nucleus can cause a neutron to be emitted. For a given isotope and assuming monoenergetic photons, the emitted neutrons will have a spectrum consisting of one or more discrete energies. If the gamma ray source and neutron spectrometer are appropriately chosen, the neutron spectrum can be used as a fingerprint to identify the isotope. This photoneutron spectroscopy method has a number of potential advantages over thermal and fast neutron analysis, such as generally simpler spectra and low inherent natural neutron background. It also has drawbacks, such as possible induced neutron background and a present lack of suitable fieldable photon sources. This paper will describe the method and preliminary simulations and calculations to examine its feasibility. Possible sources, detectors and geometries will be discussed.

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 score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207