MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019153786 · doi:10.1088/1748-0221/6/05/p05011

Diamond detector irradiation tests at TRIUMF

2011· article· en· W2019153786 on OpenAlexaff
David Axen, F. Dallaire, C. David, Margret Fincke-Keeler, L. L. Kurchaninov, R. Keeler, P. Krieger, C. Leroy, R. A. McPherson, Gerald Oakham, P. Poffenberger, K. Randrianarivony, Yun-Ha Shin, I. M. Trigger, Joshua Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Instrumentation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCarleton UniversityTRIUMFUniversity of VictoriaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluenceIrradiationDetectorProtonDiamondPhysicsRadiation hardeningPicosecondNuclear physicsMaterials scienceRadiationOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polycrystalline chemical vapour deposition (pCVD) diamond detectors are being considered for an upgrade of Forward Calorimetry in the ATLAS detector at the CERN LHC. In order to determine their radiation hardness, four detectors were continuously monitored during irradiation with 500 MeV protons at TRIUMF to a fluence of 2.25 x 10 17 protons/cm 2 . All four detectors worked at the end of the irradiation period. The detector response A as a function of fluence has been fitted to a sum of two exponentials and to a function A = a o /(1+ a 1 ϕ) where a o is the initial response and ϕ is the fluence with a 1 = 9.8 x 10 −17 ± 3.2 x 10 −18 cm 2 /proton. At the end of irradiation the response had reduced to five percent of the original value. The time resolution was found to be ∼ 250 picoseconds.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of InstrumentationSame topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207