SU-FF-T-244: Investigation of Anomalous Recombination Behaviour in Cylindrical Ionization Chambers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Measurements using air-filled ionization chambers must be corrected for the effect of ion recombination. In recent years a number of authors have presented data for cylindrical and parallel chambers that do not agree with the standard Boag theory. An experimental investigation was carried out to look at the possible mechanisms that have been proposed for these deviations. Method and Materials: Four different Farmer-type chambers - PTW30001, NE2571, NE2581, Exradin A12 — were used to look at how the recombination behaviour depended on: i) chamber type; ii) continuous or pulsed radiation; iii) dose per pulse; iv) modality (photons or electrons). Three radiation sources were used: i) Sr-90 check source; ii) Co-60 beam; iii) Elekta Precise linac. Results: It was found that all four chamber types showed similar non-linear behaviour at polarizing voltages > 250 V using a low-doserate Sr-90 check source. This was a little surprising considering the significant differences in chamber design for these types. Also, all chamber types showed a difference in the shape of the 1/I vs 1/V plot for opposite polarities — the chamber signal was larger when collecting negative charge - indicating that the effect may be due to free-electron collection and/or charge multiplication. In the linac measurements no difference in behaviour was seen between photon and electron beams (as expected) but the non-linear curvature and difference between polarities was only seen at low dose per pulse values (< 0.02 cGy). Stem and cable irradiation were also investigated and found to be insignificant. Conclusion: Deviations from classical Boag recombination theory have been observed for “well-designed” Farmer chambers in a range of photon and electron beams. Measurements to date cannot single out one mechanism as the primary effect but indicate that insulator/stem irradiation and free-electron collection are not significant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".