MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162887024 · doi:10.1017/s2044820110000778

New optical mount design for Canadian Light Source far infrared beamline

2010· article· en· W2162887024 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tim May, S. Chen, D. Beauregard, D. M. Taylor, Timothy P. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueDiamond Light Source Proceedings · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGimbalOpticsBeamlineActuatorRotation (mathematics)MountOffset (computer science)Beam (structure)PhysicsEngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Light Source far infrared (IR) beamline uses seven mirrors to transport the IR light to the spectrometer experimental station (May et al. 2006). A new mirror mount provides more stability and precision control of mirror alignment. The design uses a gimbal arrangement that reflects the IR beam through 90°. Internal motor actuators for 2° of angular rotation (pitch and roll) and 1° of translation drive the mount. The two independent rotation axes intersect at the mirror centre to minimize translation offset when rotated. Translation along the incoming beam axis allows focus adjustment of the elliptical mirrors mounted. Beam steering using closed loop control with position feedback is precise and repeatable. Piezo-actuator tilting mirrors in an active optics system use this gimbal design for mounting. The design is compact and scales to the size of the mirror to be mounted; this allows installing new components into the existing chambers. We present features of the mount that include in-vacuum operation (Ultra High Vacuum (UHV) possible with change of motor type), economic materials and ability to handle heavy elements of 33 kg or more.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiamond Light Source ProceedingsSame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207