MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117619386 · doi:10.1109/pac.1997.749559

Summary of the single-beam collective effects in the LHC

2002· article· en· W2117619386 on OpenAlexaff
F. Ruggiero, J. Scott Berg, O. Brüning, F. Caspers, M. Morvillo, M. D'Yachkov

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 1997 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.97CH36167) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLarge Hadron ColliderBunchesPhysicsElectrical impedanceLimit (mathematics)Beam (structure)Landau dampingInstabilityParticle physicsMechanicsNuclear physicsPlasmaOpticsQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single beam collective effects can limit the performance of the LHC and, together with parasitic losses, impose constraints on the design of the components of the LHC vacuum system. Because of the large number of bunches in the LHC, coherent losses and multibunch instability rise times generated by the impedance items can be rather large. For example, the vacuum chambers of the main experiments can lead to large parasitic losses and a continuous feedback from the impedance calculations during their design process is desirable. We first summarise the current status of the impedance model for the LHC and estimate rise times and threshold currents for different instabilities. In a second step, we discuss possibilities of controlling these instabilities, using feedback systems and Landau damping.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.014

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 1997 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.97CH36167)Same topicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersFrench-language works237,207