MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739559055 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2017.00002

APPLICATION OF GEANT4 TO THE DATA ANALYSIS OF THERMAL NEUTRON SCATTERING EXPERIMENTS

2017· article· en· W2739559055 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Gang Li, G. Bentoumi, Z. Tun, Liqian Li, B. Sur

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
KeywordsScatteringNeutron scatteringSmall-angle neutron scatteringNeutronNeutron temperaturePhysicsNuclear physicsCross section (physics)Scattering lengthBiological small-angle scatteringNeutron cross sectionMaterials scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple scattering has been well recognized as an important correction in neutron scattering cross-section measurements. The GEANT4 simulation toolkit includes a special thermal neutron scattering model and a corresponding data library at low neutron energies (<4 eV). A new method using GEANT4 to estimate the multiple-scattering effect in thermal neutron scattering experiments is presented. The method was applied to the double differential cross-section measurements of light water with various sample thicknesses under ambient conditions of temperature and pressure. The resulting scattering law for neutron energy transfer from 42.0 to 14.6 meV over scattering angles from 10° to 110° is presented and compared with the tabulated Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF/B-VII).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNL Nuclear ReviewSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207