MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109226632 · doi:10.1120/jacmp.v12i3.3463

Characterization of linear accelerator X‐ray source size using a laminated beam‐spot camera

2011· article· en· W2109226632 on OpenAlexaff
Collins Yeboah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsLinear particle acceleratorBeam (structure)PhysicsFull width at half maximumPlane (geometry)Materials scienceGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A laminated beam-spot camera of length 20 cm and effective cross-sectional area 2.5 cm × 3 cm was designed and constructed for the measurement of X-ray beam-spot sizes on different models of Siemens accelerators. With the accelerator gantry at 180° and camera positioned on an accessory tray holder, an XV film placed in contact with the camera at the distal end of it detected those X-rays that were transmitted through the camera. The FWHM of the detected X-ray intensity profile in the gun-target (G-T) direction or the orthogonal A-B direction was used as a measure of the beam-spot size in that direction. Siemens Mevatron MXEs exhibited a beam-spot size of 1.7 ± 0.2 mm in both the in-plane and cross-plane directions for 6 MV photon beams. The beam-spot size observed for a Mevatron MDX-2 was larger by up to 1 mm, and also was different for the in-plane and cross-plane directions. For Siemens PRIMUS accelerators, the beam-spot size in the in-plane direction was found to fall in the range 2.0-2.2 ± 0.2 mm, whereas the beam-spot size in the cross-plane direction fell within 1.7-1.9 ± 0.2 mm for 6, 10, and 18 MV photon beams. Assessment of long-term stability of the beam-spot size shows the spot size remains fairly stable over time.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207