SU‐F‐T‐239: Evaluation of Plastic Scintillator Light Output for Various Lead Doping Concentrations: Towards LET Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This work seeks to develop a beam quality meter using multiple differently doped plastic scintillators that are thus intrinsically beam‐quality dependent. Plastic scintillators spontaneously emit visible light upon irradiation; the amount of light produced is dependent on stopping power (closely related to LET) according to Birks’ law. Doping plastic scintillators can be used to tune their sensitivity to specific LET ranges. Methods: GEANT4.10.1 Monte Carlo (MC) was used to evaluate the response of various scintillator dopant combinations. MC radiation transport and scintillator light response were validated against previously published literature. Current work involves evaluating detector response experimentally; to that end, a detector prototype with interchangeable scintillator housing was constructed. Measurement set‐up guides light emitted by the scintillator to a photomultiplier tube via a glass taper junction coupled to an optical fiber. The resulting signal is measured by an electrometer, and normalized to dose readout from a diode. Measurements have been done using clinical electron and orthovoltage beams. MC response (simulated scintillator light normalized to dose scored inside the scintillating volume) was evaluated for four different LET radiations for an undoped and 1%Pb doped scintillator (σ=0.85%). Simulated incident electrons included: 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 6, 12, and 18 MeV; these energies correspond to a range of stopping power (related to LET) values ranging from 1.824 to 11.09 MeVcm2g−1 (SCOL from NIST‐ESTAR). Results: Initial MC results show a distinct divergence in scintillator response as LET increases. The response for undoped plastic scintillator indicated a 35.0% increase in signal when going from 18 MeV (low LET) to 0.05 MeV (high LET) while 1%‐Pb doped scintillator indicated a 100.9% increase. Conclusion: After validating MC against measurement, simulations will be used to test various concentrations (2%, 4%, 6%) of different high‐Z material dopants (W, Mo) to optimize the scintillator types for the beam quality meter. NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN‐435608
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".