MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790873632 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2017-0251

Beam offset impact on the polarization in the CLIC beam delivery system

2018· article· en· W2790873632 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayşegül Uşun Simitçioğlu, İ. Tapan, Rogelio Tomás, Moritz Beckmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsInteraction pointPolarization (electrochemistry)Offset (computer science)Beam (structure)Cathode rayLinear polarizationOpticsElectronNuclear physicsLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The baseline configuration of the Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) foresees an electron beam with 80% polarization at the interaction point (IP) to be measured with an accuracy of 0.1%. The propagation of the polarization through the CLIC beam delivery system (BDS) is investigated here using the BMAD code. The impact of offsets applied both to the beam and the different elements in the CLIC BDS on the polarization at the IP is evaluated.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersFrench-language works237,207