Depth ionization curves for an unmodulated proton beam measured with different ionization chambers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in depth dose curves for a 78 MeV unmodulated proton beam were measured with four commercially available ionization chambers. Measurements were performed both in water and in a commercially available solid water phantom. A depth scaling factor (Cpl) was determined from the ratio of depths distal to the Bragg peak where the dose is reduced to 80% of the maximum dose in water and in the solid water phantom. This scaling factor provides good agreement between the ionization curves at all depths in water and in this solid water phantom. There is no significant difference in the value of the depth scaling factor between the ratios (R80wat/R80med) and (R50wat/R50med), or (R100wat/R100med) for 78 MeV unmodulated proton beams. The depth scaling factor for this commercially available solid water phantom is 1.023. An effective point of measurement for a cylindrical ionization chamber was found to be slightly greater than the 50% of the cavity radius proposed by the AAPM-TG25 dosimetry protocol for electron beams and amounts to 62.5% of the cavity radius of cylindrical ionization chambers. The ion collection efficiency, Pion, and the polarity correction factor, Ppol, for all the ionization chambers studied are within 1% and 0.4% of unity, respectively. Absolute doses measured with a parallel plate ionization chamber in water and in the solid water phantom show that the doses measured in the solid water phantom are 1.4% +/- 0.5% lower than in water. The dose rate dependent response of the beam line monitor chamber was also investigated. Agreement between all the chambers was within 1.5% at the dose rates studied but the results showed that all four ionization chambers are less dose rate dependent than the monitor chamber.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".