MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123161116 · doi:10.1109/pac.1995.505149

RFQ cold model studies

2002· article· en· W2123161116 on OpenAlexaff
P. Bricault, D. Joffe, Helen Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings Particle Accelerator Conference · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsTransverse planeNuclear physicsLinear particle acceleratorBeam (structure)Separator (oil production)Drift tubeElectrical impedanceParticle acceleratorHeavy ionIonAtomic physicsNuclear engineeringOpticsEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A post accelerator, primarily to provide beams of interest to nuclear astrophysics users, is included in the upgrading and expansion of the radioactive beam facility at TRIUMF. Singly charged ion beams, with A/spl les/30, delivered from the on line mass separator with an energy of 2 keV/u, will be accelerated in a stage linac consisting of an RFQ and a post-stripper drift-tube. As a consequence of the low charge-to-mass ratio of the ions, a low operating frequency for the RFQ is required to achieve adequate transverse focusing. CW operation is specified to preserve beam intensity. Because of its relatively high specific shunt impedance, mechanical stability, and the absence of vane voltage asymmetries in the end regions, the split-ring 4-rod RFQ structure has been chosen. Several cold models have been built to study three different types of split-ring RFQ structures. Specific shunt impedance and longitudinal field have been measured. A comparison of these measurements for various split-ring structures is 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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings Particle Accelerator ConferenceSame topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207