MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046012066 · doi:10.1117/12.417157

Resolution and sensitivity in computer-automated radioactive particle tracking (CARPT)

2001· article· en· W2046012066 on OpenAlexaff
Shantanu Roy, Faı̈çal Larachi, Muthanna H. Al‐Dahhan, Milorad P. Duduković

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersSandia National Laboratories
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Tracking (education)Resolution (logic)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The computer automated radioactive particle tracking (CARPT) is a non-invasive flow monitoring technique used! for measuring mean and fluctuating velocity fields of a traced phase in a multiphase flow system. The method involves accurately monitoring the instantaneous position of a radioactive tracer particle using an array of strategically positioned scintillation detectors. A limitation to the accuracy of CARPT lies in the error associated with the reconstruction of the tracer particle position which affects the space-resolution of the technique. It is of interest, therefore, to minimize this error by choosing wisely the best hardware and an optimal configuration of CARPT detectors’ array. Such choices are currently based on experience, without firm scientific basis. In this paper, through theoretical modeling and simulation, we describe how the accuracy of a radioactive particle tracking setup may be assessed a priori. Through an example of a proposed implementation of CARPT on a gas- solids riser, we demonstrate how this knowledge can be used for choosing the hardware required for the experiment. Finally, we show how the optimal arrangement of detectors can be effected for maximum accuracy for a given amount of monetary investment for the experiment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207