MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A CARBON NANOTUBE-BASED RADIATION SENSOR

2007· article· en· W2070835050 on OpenAlexaffvenue
J. Ma, John T. W. Yeow, James C. L. Chow, Rob Barnett

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Robotics and Automation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCarbon nanotubeIonizationDosimeterElectrodeRadiationOptoelectronicsVoltageIonization chamberNanotechnologyOpticsElectrical engineeringChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dosimetric measurements and monitoring play an essential role in radiotherapy. Because of their sensitivity and relatively flat energy response ionization chambers remain the most important dosimeters. However, ionization chambers usually have large physical dimensions and require high bias voltages to achieve acceptable ionization collection efficiency. Such disadvantages limit their applications for in vivo dose measurements. The availability of novel materials such as carbon nanotubes (CNTs) has created the potential to miniaturize traditional ionization chambers and lower the bias voltages. This paper describes a new CNT-based radiation sensor. In the first stage, characteristics of the sensor were examined with two stainless steel electrodes. The sensor displayed excellent linear responses to exposure and showed accurate responses to oblique incident beam measurements. These experimental results showed that the prototype sensor is suitable for studying the ionization collection efficiency of CNTs. In the second stage, square- and irregular-shaped CNTs electrodes were designed. Saturation characteristics of the sensor with the CNTs electrodes were measured. Experimental results and ongoing work are presented and discussed in this paper.

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)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Robotics and AutomationSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207