MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122874442 · doi:10.1109/pac.2007.4439910

RF amplifier choice for the ISAC superconducting linac

2007· article· en· W2122874442 on OpenAlexaff
Iouri Bylinskii, K. Fong, Jiemin Lu, A.K. Mitra, C. W. Owen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplifierLinear particle acceleratorRF power amplifierElectrical engineeringNuclear engineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsEngineeringBeam (structure)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A superconducting linac is being commissioned at TRIUMF as an extension to the existing room temperature accelerator of exotic ions at ISAC. It will increase the isotope final energy from 1.5 to 6.5 MeV/u. Acceleration is accomplished in 40 bulk niobium quarter wave superconducting cavities operating at 106 and 141 MHz. Each cavity is energized from an independent RF amplifier with power rating up to 1 kW cw. Both vacuum tube and solid-state amplifiers were considered as a viable option for the drivers. The paper compares many important parameters of these 2 amplifiers such as reliability, serviceability, capital and maintenance costs, as well as operating characteristics: gain linearity, phase noise, phase drift and others. Test results of prototypes of both types of amplifiers and 1-year operational experience of 20 tube amplifiers are discussed. Based on that the amplifier design recommendations are formulated.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207