Evaluation of reconstruction errors and identification of artefacts for JET gamma and neutron tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Joint European Torus (JET) neutron profile monitor ensures 2D coverage of the gamma and neutron emissive region that enables tomographic reconstruction. Due to the availability of only two projection angles and to the coarse sampling, tomographic inversion is a limited data set problem. Several techniques have been developed for tomographic reconstruction of the 2-D gamma and neutron emissivity on JET, but the problem of evaluating the errors associated with the reconstructed emissivity profile is still open. The reconstruction technique based on the maximum likelihood principle, that proved already to be a powerful tool for JET tomography, has been used to develop a method for the numerical evaluation of the statistical properties of the uncertainties in gamma and neutron emissivity reconstructions. The image covariance calculation takes into account the additional techniques introduced in the reconstruction process for tackling with the limited data set (projection resampling, smoothness regularization depending on magnetic field). The method has been validated by numerically simulations and applied to JET data. Different sources of artefacts that may significantly influence the quality of reconstructions and the accuracy of variance calculation have been identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".