MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Status of the ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter; Performance after 2 years of LHC operation

2012· article· en· W2057849975 on OpenAlexaff
Hass Abouzeid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtlas (anatomy)Large Hadron ColliderCalorimeter (particle physics)ArgonNuclear physicsPhysicsMedicineOpticsAtomic physicsAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ATLAS experiment is designed to study the proton-proton collisions produced at the Large Hadron Collider(LHC) at CERN. Liquid argon sampling calorimeters are used for all electromagnetic calorimetry covering the pseudo-rapidity region up to 3.2, as well as for hadronic calorimetry in the range 1.4-4.9. The electromagnetic calorimeters use lead as passive material and are characterized by an accordion geometry that allows a fast and uniform azimuthal response without any gap. Copper and tungsten were chosen as passive material for the hadronic calorimetry; whereas a classic plate geometry was adopted at large polar angles, an innovative one based on cylindrical electrodes with thin argon gaps was designed for the coverage at low angles, where the particles flow is higher. All detectors are housed in three cryostats kept at about 87 K. After installation in 2004-2006, the calorimeters were extensively commissioned over the three years period prior to first collisions in 2009, using cosmic rays and single LHC beams. Since then, around 9 fb$^{-1}$ of data have been collected at a center of mass energy of 7 TeV. During all these stages, the calorimeter and its electronics have been operating almost optimally, with performances very close to the specifications.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207