MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017909302 · doi:10.1063/1.1357231

Tritium depth dependence of tritium imaging

2001· article· en· W2017909302 on OpenAlexafffund
I.S. Youle, A.A. Haasz

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTritiumMonte Carlo methodMaterials scienceGraphiteOpticsNuclear physicsPhysicsComputational physicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Monte Carlo simulation of tritium β particle motion in a matrix material indicates that the probability of escape through the material surface is greater than 50% for near-surface tritium, but drops quite rapidly with increasing depth. Beyond an areal density depth of 2×10−5 g/cm2, the decline is close to exponential, with an e-folding length of approximately 3×10−5 g/cm2, the exact value varying slightly with the material. The sensitivity of the tritium imaging technique will decrease at a similar rate with increasing depth of tritium. Experimentally, the image intensity of a tritium-implanted graphite specimen was observed to decrease exponentially with coating thickness as an aluminum layer was evaporated onto its surface, with an exponent that was within 30% of the predicted value. The Monte Carlo simulation also indicated that the limit of lateral resolution of the tritium imaging technique will be slightly less than the depth of the tritium, subject always to Recknagel’s limit of resolution due to “chromatic aberration” of the electron optics, which is of the order of 200 nm. If tritium is uniformly distributed through the material, surface tritium so dominates image formation that Recknagel’s limit inevitably applies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207