OPTIMAL DESIGN OF THE MAGNET PROFILE FOR A COMPACT QUADRUPOLE ON STORAGE RING AT THE CANADIAN SYNCHROTRON FACILITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis concerns design of a quadrupole magnet for the next generation Canadian Light Source storage ring. The quality of the design is measured by the so-called width of Good Field Region (GFR) in the magnetic field generated by the magnet in a particular configuration, e.g. quadrupole configuration. The width of GFR is defined upon the multipole error in magnetic field strength, in particular the error being less than 0.1%. The design requirement for the magnet was to have the GFR at least ±1.0 cm. It is noted that the existing or preliminary design of the magnet (Dallin, 2018) has only achieved ±0.8 cm GFR. This thesis was motivated to design the magnet of the quadrupole so that the foregoing design requirement can be met. The secondary motivation of this thesis was to improve the design of the magnet so that the bad edge effect of the magnet can be reduced.\n\nIncrease of the width of GFR may be achieved by reduction of the multipole errors. The shape of the magnet pole is a major factor to cause these errors. An optimal design of the shape of the magnet pole was attempted in this thesis. Specifically, a simulation-based trial-and-error procedure was taken for the optimal design partly due to some difficulty to represent the shape of the magnet pole analytically. This procedure was acceptable as a pilot try for a more sophisticated optimal design that may follow in the future. Reduction of the bad edge effect with the magnet may be reduced by careful modification of the shape of the side or edge of the magnet. \n\nThe result of this thesis is very encouraging; specifically, the width of ±1.1 cm of GFR has been achieved within the field region. The result thus gives a proof of the proposed design approach with the procedure. Further, the bad edge effect was also reduced.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".