Energy response of an aluminium oxide detector in kilovoltage and megavoltage photon beams: an EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulation study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Monte Carlo study of the energy response of an aluminium oxide (Al(2)O(3)) detector in kilovoltage and megavoltage photon beams relative to (60)Co gamma rays has been performed using EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulations. The sensitive volume of the Al(2)O(3) detector was simulated as a disc of diameter 2.85 mm and thickness 1 mm. The phantom material was water and the irradiation depth chosen was 2.0 cm in kilovoltage photon beams and 5.0 cm in megavoltage photon beams. The results show that the energy response of the Al(2)O(3) detector is constant within 3% for photon beam energies in the energy range of (60)Co gamma rays to 25 MV X rays. However, the Al(2)O(3) detector shows an enhanced energy response for kilovoltage photon beams, which in the case of 50 kV X rays is 3.2 times higher than that for (60)Co gamma rays. There is essentially no difference in the energy responses of LiF and Al(2)O(3) detectors irradiated in megavoltage photon beams when these Al(2)O(3) results are compared with literature data for LiF thermoluminescence detectors. However, the Al(2)O(3) detector has a much higher enhanced response compared with LiF detectors in kilovoltage X-ray beams, more than twice as much for the case of 50 kV X rays.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it