MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Particularities of the ARIEL e-Linac Cryogenic System

2015· article· en· W2557875606 on OpenAlexaff
Iouri Bylinskii, Geoff Hodgson, David Kishi, Shane Koscielniak, Alexey Koveshnikov, Robert Laxdal, Ruslan Nagimov, Dimo Yosifov

Bibliographic record

VenueJACOW · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear particle acceleratorPhysicsOpticsBeam (structure)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Advanced Rare IsotopE Laboratory (ARIEL) is a major expansion of the Isotope Separation and Acceleration (ISAC) facility at TRIUMF [1]. A key part of the ARIEL project is a 10 mA 50 MeV continuous-wave superconducting radiofrequency (SRF) electron linear accelerator (e-linac). The 1.3 GHz SRF cavities are cooled by liquid helium (LHe) at 2 K [2]. The 4 K 2 K LHe transition is achieved onboard of each cryomodule by the cryoinsert containing counterflow heat exchanger augmented with JT valve [3]. Air Liquide LHe cryoplant provides 4 K LHe to cryomodules. After successful commissioning of the cryoplant, 2 K sub-atmospheric (SA) system and cryomodules, the ultimate integration test confirmed stable operation of two cryomodules comprising two 9 cell SRF cavities. Particularities of this cryogenic system include conservative design of the oil removal system, original design heat exchanger in the SA pumping system, hermetic SA pumps, inline full SA flow purifier, multipurpose recovery/purification compressor, modular LHe distribution system, top-loaded design cryomodules, and overall radiation resistant design. The paper presents details of these features as well as integration tests results.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.194
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACOWSame topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207