MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890813518 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-24391-2

Design and optimization of a compact laser-driven proton beamline

2018· article· en· W2890813518 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Scisciò, M. Migliorati, L. Palumbo, P. Antici

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBeamlineLaserProtonContext (archaeology)OpticsBeam (structure)Range (aeronautics)Energy (signal processing)PhysicsMaterials scienceNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Laser-accelerated protons, generated by irradiating a solid target with a short, energetic laser pulse at high intensity (I > 1018 W·cm−2), represent a complementary if not outperforming source compared to conventional accelerators, due to their intrinsic features, such as high beam charge and short bunch duration. However, the broadband energy spectrum of these proton sources is a bottleneck that precludes their use in applications requiring a more reduced energy spread. Consequently, in recent times strong effort has been put to overcome these limits and to develop laser-driven proton beamlines with low energy spread. In this paper, we report on beam dynamics simulations aiming at optimizing a laser-driven beamline - i.e. a laser-based proton source coupled to conventional magnetic beam manipulation devices - producing protons with a reduced energy spread, usable for applications. The energy range of investigation goes from 2 to 20 MeV, i.e. the typical proton energies that can be routinely obtained using commercial TW-power class laser systems. Our beamline design is capable of reducing the energy spread below 20%, still keeping the overall transmission efficiency around 1% and producing a proton spot-size in the range of 10 mm2. We briefly discuss the results in the context of applications in the domain of Cultural Heritage.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicLaser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207