MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277864051 · doi:10.1142/s1793626815300121

Accelerator Science and Technology in Canada — From the Microtron to TRIUMF, Superconducting Cyclotrons and the Canadian Light Source

2015· article· en· W2277864051 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews of Accelerator Science and Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrotronCyclotronNuclear physicsPhysicsLinear particle acceleratorParticle acceleratorBeam (structure)Nuclear engineeringEngineeringOpticsElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As elsewhere, accelerators in Canada have evolved from modest beginnings to major facilities such as TRIUMF (currently with the highest-power driver for rare isotope beam production) and the third generation Canadian Light Source. Highlights along the way include construction of the first microtron, the first racetrack microtron and the first superconducting cyclotron (to which list might have been added the first pulse stretcher ring, had it been funded sooner). This article will summarize the history of accelerators in Canada, documenting both the successes and the near-misses. Besides the research accelerators, a thriving commercial sector has developed, manufacturing small cyclotrons and linacs, beam line components and superconducting rf cavities.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · 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