Analytical modeling of relative luminescence efficiency of Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>:C optically stimulated luminescence detectors exposed to high-energy heavy charged particles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work is to test analytical models to calculate the luminescence efficiency of Al(2)O(3):C optically stimulated luminescence detectors (OSLDs) exposed to heavy charged particles with energies relevant to space dosimetry and particle therapy. We used the track structure model to obtain an analytical expression for the relative luminescence efficiency based on the average radial dose distribution produced by the heavy charged particle. We compared the relative luminescence efficiency calculated using seven different radial dose distribution models, including a modified model introduced in this work, with experimental data. The results obtained using the modified radial dose distribution function agreed within 20% with experimental data from Al(2)O(3):C OSLDs relative luminescence efficiency for particles with atomic number ranging from 1 to 54 and linear energy transfer in water from 0.2 up to 1368 keV µm(-1). In spite of the significant improvement over other radial dose distribution models, understanding of the underlying physical processes associated with these radial dose distribution models remain elusive and may represent a limitation of the track structure model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".