MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075377234 · doi:10.1116/1.1843822

Vacuum and the electron tube industry

2005· article· en· W2075377234 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vacuum Science & Technology A Vacuum Surfaces and Films · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGyrotron and Vacuum Electronics Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVacuum tubeTube (container)Incandescent light bulbProduction (economics)EngineeringElectrical engineeringElectron gunTelecommunicationsEngineering physicsMechanical engineeringPhysicsElectronEconomicsCathode ray

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electron tube industry started with the patenting of the thermionic diode by John Ambrose Fleming in 1904. The vacuum technology used by the infant tube industry was copied from the existing incandescent lamp industry. The growing demands for electron tubes for the military in the first world war led to major improvements in pumps and processing methods. By the 1920s, mass production methods were developing to satisfy the demands for receiving tubes by the burgeoning radio industry. Further expansion in the 1930s and 1940s resulted in improvements in automatic equipment for pumping vacuum tubes leading to the massive production rates of electron tubes in the second world war and the following two decades. The demand for radar during the war resulted in the development of techniques for large-scale production of microwave tubes and CRTs, the latter technology being put to good use later in TV picture tube production. The commercial introduction of the transistor ended the massive demand for receiving tubes. This review concentrates on the vacuum technology developed for receiving tube production.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.276 · 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