MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890726025 · doi:10.1063/1.5018998

A new tool for (α,n) yield calculations and its implications for DEAP-3600

2018· article· en· W2890726025 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutronPhysicsNuclear physicsContext (archaeology)Yield (engineering)Neutron detectionDelayed neutronFission product yieldNeutron cross sectionComputational physicsFissionNeutron scattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neutron-induced nuclear recoils present one of the dominant backgrounds in many low-background experiments. These neutrons are largely radiogenic in origin, coming from fission and (α, n) reactions in detector components. The (α, n) neutron production rate in a material depends on its composition and the energies of the α decays inside of it. We present NeuCBOT, the Neutron Calculator Based on TALYS, a new tool for calculating the (α, n) yields and neutron energy spectra for materials exposed to a given set of α energies or α-emitting isotopes. We benchmark these calculations against measured yields and SOURCES-4C calculations. We discuss these yield calculations in the context of DEAP-3600, a Weakly Interactive Massive Particle dark matter detector at SNOLAB. Using NeuCBOT and Geant4 simulations, we predict the neutron-induced nuclear recoil background in DEAP-3600. We then present in-situ constraints on the neutron background rate in DEAP-3600, consistent with our prediction.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207