MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794651021 · doi:10.1107/s1600577518002655

First-principles X-ray absorption dose calculation for time-dependent mass and optical density

2018· article· en· W2794651021 on OpenAlexafffund
Viatcheslav Berejnov, Boris Rubinstein, Lis G. A. Melo, Adam P. Hitchcock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Synchrotron Radiation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityBrockhouse Institute for Materials ResearchAutomotive Fuel Cell Cooperation (Canada)
FundersCanadian Light SourceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAbsorption (acoustics)Exponential functionKineticsPhoton energyOrder (exchange)PhotonFunction (biology)PhysicsMaterials scienceComputational physicsChemistryOpticsMathematicsMathematical analysisQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A dose integral of time-dependent X-ray absorption under conditions of variable photon energy and changing sample mass is derived from first principles starting with the Beer-Lambert (BL) absorption model. For a given photon energy the BL dose integral D(e, t) reduces to the product of an effective time integral T(t) and a dose rate R(e). Two approximations of the time-dependent optical density, i.e. exponential A(t) = c + aexp(-bt) for first-order kinetics and hyperbolic A(t) = c + a/(b + t) for second-order kinetics, were considered for BL dose evaluation. For both models three methods of evaluating the effective time integral are considered: analytical integration, approximation by a function, and calculation of the asymptotic behaviour at large times. Data for poly(methyl methacrylate) and perfluorosulfonic acid polymers measured by scanning transmission soft X-ray microscopy were used to test the BL dose calculation. It was found that a previous method to calculate time-dependent dose underestimates the dose in mass loss situations, depending on the applied exposure time. All these methods here show that the BL dose is proportional to the exposure time D(e, t) ≃ K(e)t.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Synchrotron RadiationSame topicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence AnalysisFrench-language works237,207