MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605645225 · doi:10.3390/qubs1010004

The Brightest Light in Canada: The Canadian Light Source

2017· article· en· W2605645225 on OpenAlexafffundabout
J. N. Cutler, Dean Chapman, Les Dallin, Robert Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantum Beam Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced X-ray Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryBasic Energy SciencesNational Research Council CanadaWestern Economic Diversification CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOffice of ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanCanadian Light SourceUniversity of WashingtonU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCLs upper limitsLight sourceBeamlineSynchrotron light sourcePhase (matter)Computer scienceOpticsEngineering physicsTelecommunicationsPhysicsStorage ringOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over forty years in the making, and one of Canada’s largest scientific investments in those four decades, the Canadian Light Source (CLS), a third generation source of synchrotron light, was designed for high performance and flexibility and serves the diverse needs of the Canadian research community by providing brilliant light for applied and basic research programmes ranging from the far infrared to the hard X-ray regimes. Development of the scientific program at the CLS has been envisioned in four distinct phases. The first phase consists of the accelerator complex together with seven experimental facilities; the second phase adds six more experimental facilities and additional infrastructure to support them; the third phase adds seven more experimental facilities; and the fourth phase focuses on beamline and endstation upgrades, keeping the CLS as a state-of-the-art research centre. With the growth of a strong user community, the success of these experimental facilities will drive the future growth of the CLS.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantum Beam ScienceSame topicAdvanced X-ray Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207