MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of High‐Gadolinium Y <sub>0.6</sub> Gd <sub>1.34</sub> Eu <sub>0.06</sub> O <sub>3</sub> Powder and Fabrication of Transparent Ceramic Scintillator Using Pressureless Sintering

2009· article· en· W2146488457 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaodong Li, Xudong Sun, Ji‐Guang Li, Zhimeng Xiu, Tie Gao, Yinong Liu, Xiaozhi Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nutrition Society
FundersShanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsMaterials scienceCeramicSinteringGadoliniumCalcinationTransparent ceramicsScintillatorFabricationAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyMetallurgyOpticsCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparatively high gadolinium contents are of primary importance for (Y,Gd) 2 O 3 :Eu scintillators because of expected higher scintillation intensity and higher light output of the materials. Transparent Y 0.6 Gd 1.34 Eu 0.06 O 3 ceramic, with a high gadolinium composition of ∼67 mol%, has been fabricated via vacuum sintering using synthesized sinterable powders. The precursor powder was coprecipitated with ammonium hydrogen carbonate as the precipitant and the powder calcined at 1100°C showed the best sintering activity. Transparent Y 0.6 Gd 1.34 Eu 0.06 O 3 ceramic, exhibiting an in‐line transmittance of 66.7% at 610 nm, was obtained by vacuum sintering at 1670°C for 2 h. Under X‐ray excitation, the ceramic exhibited characteristic emissions of the Eu 3+ ions.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied Ceramic TechnologySame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207