Beam-Based Measurements of the ISAC-II Superconducting Heavy Ion Linac
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preparation for experiments, which typically run for one to two weeks in the ISAC-II facility at TRIUMF, requires some amount of overhead, limiting the efficiency of the facility. Efforts are underway to improve the ISAC-II linac model to reduce this overhead while also improving the quality of the delivered ion beam. This can be accomplished with beam-based measurements and corrections of alignment, cavity gradients, focal strengths, and more. A review of the present state of the linac will be given, including measured mis-alignments and other factors that affect the reproducibility of tunes. The outlook on expected improvements will also be summarized, including progress on the automatic phasing of cavities with a focus on integration to the High Level Application platform being developed at TRIUMF. Lastly, a summary will be given on the expected paradigm shift in the tuning approach taken: moving from re-active tuning by operators or beam delivery experts to pro-active measurements and investigations, version-controlled tunes, and continuous feedback from beam physicists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".