MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigation of a Tb-Doped HfO<sub>2</sub> Single Crystal Grown by a Skull Melting Method

2012· article· en· W2010769466 on OpenAlexaff
Shunsuke Kurosawa, Yoshisuke Futami, Vladimir V. Kochurikhin, М. А. Борик, Yuui Yokota, Takayuki Yanagida, Akira Yoshikawa

Bibliographic record

VenueKey engineering materials · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
FundersYoung Scientists Fund
KeywordsScintillatorMaterials scienceCrystal (programming language)Crucible (geodemography)Melting pointSingle crystalDopingPhotomultiplierCongruent meltingAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Crystal growthMicro-pulling-downOpticsCrystallographyOptoelectronicsPhysicsChemistrySiliconComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HfO2 Has High Effective Atomic Number and No Radioactive-Isotope as the Background Source, and it Can Be the Candidate for the High-Stopping Scintillator Instead of Lu2SiO5:Ce Scintillator Used in Medical Imaging, Astronomy and etc. However, HfO2 Has an Extremely High Melting Point of 2774 °C, and it Is Difficult to Grow the Crystal from the Melt Using Crucible, as there Is No Suitable Metals, which Can Survive around that Temperature. Thus, Czochralski, Bridgman, and Micro-Pulling down Method Cannot Be Applied. Therefore we Investigated Optical Properties of a 17-mol% b-Doped (Stabilized) HfO2 Crystal Grown by the Skull Melting Method, and this Crystal Had a High Refractive Index of 2.5 at 550 nm, and the Maximum Emission Peak at ~550 nm from 5D4 Excited States of Tb3+. In Addition, we Found the Radiation Reaction of the Crystal Irradiated with Alpha and Gamma Rays Measuring with a Photomultiplier.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKey engineering materialsSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207