MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330277438 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq538

Design of a multi-element TEPC for neutron monitoring

2010· article· en· W2330277438 on OpenAlexafffund
A.J. Waker, Aslam, J. A. Lori

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)Canadian Nuclear LaboratoriesOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering
KeywordsLibrary scienceNuclear engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tissue-equivalent proportional counters (TEPCs) have long been considered suitable candidate instruments for more accurate neutron monitors in nuclear power plants. It has also been recognised that the production of truly light-weight devices based on TEPCs requires further effort directed towards increasing their sensitivity and decreasing their physical size. This paper deals with the construction of a multi-element TEPC (METEPC) designed to have the sensitivity of a 12.7-cm (5-in.) diameter spherical TEPC, but with approximately one-tenth of its physical size. Construction of the METEPC is achieved by machining 61 elongated cylindrical cavities in a single block of A150 TE plastic. Comparative measurements carried out in neutron fields with mean energies ranging from 34 to 354 keV demonstrate that the METEPC constructed does match the sensitivity of a 5-in. spherical TEPC and that microdosimetric lineal energy spectra measured with both detectors have the same features and show the same changes with neutron radiation quality.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207