MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102238852 · doi:10.1109/pac.1999.795373

A 35 MHz spiral re-buncher cavity for the TRIUMF ISAC facility

2003· article· en· W2102238852 on OpenAlexaff
A.K. Mitra, R. Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 1999 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.99CH36366) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAmplitudeElectrical impedanceSpiral (railway)VibrationBeam (structure)OpticsAcousticsEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A full-scale prototype of a 35 MHz re-buncher cavity was built for the ISAC project at TRIUMF. The re-buncher will be operated in cw mode to maintain the beam intensity and quality. Due to the longitudinal space limitation in the beam line, a compact spiral structure was constructed and investigated to determine its parameters. Natural frequencies and vibration amplitudes were measured. Vibration amplitudes of the spiral structure with 10 liter per minute water flow are two orders of magnitude lower than the allowable values. Measurements also show that the shunt impedance of the structure is 370 k/spl Omega/ with a Q of 2740 at a resonant frequency of 39.5 MHz. MAFIA simulation predicts the resonant frequency, Q and shunt impedance to be 39.8 MHz, 5520 and 686 k/spl Omega/ respectively. Due to poor rf contacts of the prototype cavity, the measured Q is much less than that predicted by MAFIA, however, R/Q values of the prototype and simulation are 135 and 124 respectively. Construction details and final dimensions of the spiral for 35 MHz will also be presented.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 1999 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.99CH36366)Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207