MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2256329715 · doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2016.01.020

Target materials for exotic ISOL beams

2016· article· en· W2256329715 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Gottberg

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFusion materials and technologies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratoryCERNTRIUMF
KeywordsMaterials scienceRefractory metalsBeam (structure)CeramicCarbideNuclear engineeringNanotechnologyMetallurgyOpticsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demand for intensity, purity, reliability and availability of short-lived isotopes far from stability is steadily high, and considerably exceeding the supply. In many cases the ISOL (Isotope Separation On-Line) method can provide beams of high intensity and purity. Limitations in terms of accessible chemical species and minimum half-life are driven mainly by chemical reactions and physical processes inside of the thick target. A wide range of materials are in use, ranging from thin metallic foils and liquids to refractory ceramics, while poly-phasic mixed uranium carbides have become the reference target material for most ISOL facilities world-wide. Target material research and development is often complex and especially important post-irradiation analyses are hindered by the high intrinsic radiotoxicity of these materials. However, recent achievements have proven that these investigations are possible if the effort of different facilities is combined, leading to the development of new material matrices that can supply new beams of unprecedented intensity and beam current stability.

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)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations56
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B Beam Interactions with Materials and AtomsSame topicFusion materials and technologiesFrench-language works237,207