MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042316044 · doi:10.1063/1.4868496

An ion guide laser ion source for isobar-suppressed rare isotope beams

2014· article· en· W2042316044 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Raeder, H. Heggen, J. Lassen, F. Ames, D. Bishop, P. Bricault, P. Kunz, Anders Mjøs, A. Teigelhöfer

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaTRIUMF
FundersNational Research Council CanadaAustralian GovernmentCERNTRIUMF
KeywordsIonIon sourceNuclideAtomic physicsIon beamLaserIsobarIsotope separationMaterials scienceIonizationThermionic emissionIon beam depositionIsotopeQuadrupoleIon gunNuclear physicsPhysicsOpticsElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern experiments at isotope separator on-line (ISOL) facilities like ISAC at TRIUMF often depend critically on the purity of the delivered rare isotope beams. Therefore, highly selective ion sources are essential. This article presents the development and successful on-line operation of an ion guide laser ion source (IG-LIS) for the production of ion beams free of isobaric contamination. Thermionic ions from the hot ISOL target are suppressed by an electrostatic potential barrier, while neutral radio nuclides effusing out are resonantly ionized by laser radiation within a quadrupole ion guide behind this barrier. The IG-LIS was developed through detailed thermal and ion optics simulation studies and off-line tests with stable isotopes. In a first on-line run with a SiC target a suppression of surface-ionized Na contaminants in the ion beam of up to six orders of magnitude was demonstrated.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations57
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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