MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2469658932 · doi:10.1118/1.4957218

MO‐DE‐BRA‐02: SIMAC: A Simulation Tool for Teaching Linear Accelerator Physics

2016· article· en· W2469658932 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Carlone, Nicole Harnett, Wendy Harris, B Norrlinger, M MacPherson, M Lamey, R. Brian Anderson, Mark Oldham

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalTrillium Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear particle acceleratorSoftwareMedical physicsPhysicsAccelerator physicsParticle acceleratorComputer scienceBeam (structure)SimulationOpticsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The first goal of this work is to develop software that can simulate the physics of linear accelerators (linac). The second goal is to show that this simulation tool is effective in teaching linac physics to medical physicists and linac service engineers. Methods: Linacs were modeled using analytical expressions that can correctly describe the physical response of a linac to parameter changes in real time. These expressions were programmed with a graphical user interface in order to produce an environment similar to that of linac service mode. The software, “SIMAC”, has been used as a learning aid in a professional development course 3 times (2014 – 2016) as well as in a physics graduate program. Exercises were developed to supplement the didactic components of the courses consisting of activites designed to reinforce the concepts of beam loading; the effect of steering coil currents on beam symmetry; and the relationship between beam energy and flatness. Results: SIMAC was used to teach 35 professionals (medical physicists; regulators; service engineers; 1 week course) as well as 20 graduate students (1 month project). In the student evaluations, 85% of the students rated the effectiveness of SIMAC as very good or outstanding, and 70% rated the software as the most effective part of the courses. Exercise results were collected showing that 100% of the students were able to use the software correctly. In exercises involving gross changes to linac operating points (i.e. energy changes) the majority of students were able to correctly perform these beam adjustments. Conclusion: Software simulation(SIMAC), can be used to effectively teach linac physics. In short courses, students were able to correctly make gross parameter adjustments that typically require much longer training times using conventional training methods.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.006

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics→French-language works237,207→