MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037501510 · doi:10.1063/1.1430517

Test of negative ion beams from a microwave ion source with a charge exchange canal for accelerator mass spectrometry applications

2002· article· en· W2037501510 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S-W. Kim, Robert J. Schneider, Karl F. von Reden, J. M. Hayes, J. S. C. Wills

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution
KeywordsIon sourceIonMass spectrometryAccelerator mass spectrometryAtomic physicsMaterials scienceYield (engineering)Analytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A test facility has been constructed to evaluate negative ion beams from small gaseous samples for accelerator mass spectrometry applications. The positive ion beams from the microwave ion source are passed into a charge-exchange canal (CXC) where the ions exchange electrons with magnesium vapor and become negatively charged. Positive molecular ions were either neutralized or broken up into atomic ions and neutral atoms and molecules by collision processes. Most of the resulting particles were suspected to be neutrals. In studies with injections of CO2 pulses, the resulting positive and negative C12 current peaks gave a 0.09% yield of C− ions from CO2 molecules, which includes a charge-exchange efficiency of 10%. Since nitrogen does not form a stable negative ion, N14 background is virtually eliminated after the beam goes through the CXC, which is necessary for radiocarbon measurements.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207