MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shielding and Handling of Targets for a High Intensity Radioactive Ion Beam Facility

2000· article· en· W2071229559 on OpenAlexaff
Lutz E. Moritz, G. Stanford, Clive Mark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Science and Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic shieldingNuclear physicsNuclear engineeringRadiochemistryBeam (structure)Intensity (physics)Ion beamPhysicsChemistryOpticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a steadily growing worldwide interest in generating accelerated beams of unstable nuclei for use in a variety of applications such as nuclear physics, nuclear astrophysics, atomic and condensed matter physics, and medicine. A number of facilities, either planned or under construction, will couple an intense production source of unstable elements to an efficient accelerator in order to produce accelerated ion beams of a wide range of nuclei far from stability. We describe here the production targets and their shielding as designed and constructed for ISAC, the high-intensity accelerated radioactive ion beam facility at TRIUMF.The shielding for the targets is integrated into each target module so that all services and radiation-sensitive connections are made outside the shielding and the vacuum enclosure. This allows the use of, for example, elastomer seals for the vacuum connections. Including the weight of the steel shielding, each target module weighs approximately 15 tonnes. For servicing, the target modules are removed vertically by a remotely operated crane. The modules may then be transported either to one of two hot cells for maintenance or to a storage silo. The remotely controlled transport takes place in the Target Maintenance Hall. This is a shielded, ventilated building that allows the target modules to be transported without shielding for the induced radioactivity.We also present some observations of experience during the initial commissioning at low and medium proton beam intensities.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Science and TechnologySame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207