MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004980286 · doi:10.1070/qel17141

2D microspatial distribution uniformity of photon detection efficiency and crosstalk probability of multi-pixel photon counters

2020· article· en· W3004980286 on OpenAlexaff
Lina Liu, Chun‐Ling Zhang, G. Gallina, Guo-Qing Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantum Electronics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPixelPhotonElectric fieldPhysicsOpticsGeiger counterDistribution uniformityAvalanche photodiodeField (mathematics)PhotonicsCrosstalkMaterials scienceDetectorMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two-dimensional (2D) microspatial distribution uniformity of photon detection efficiency (PDE) and optical crosstalk probability P ct of multi-pixel photon counters (MPPCs) is studied. The experimental results show that the 2D spatial distribution of P ct is obviously uneven, i.e. P ct is larger at the corners and edges of a single pixel in MPPCs, which suggest a higher electrical field in the depletion region of the pixel at the corners and edges. The nonuniformity of the 2D spatial distribution of PDE also become evident when the size of the pixels of MPPCs is small, which signifies higher nonuniformity of the electric field distribution in MPPCs with small pixel size. A method is proposed for characterization of the 2D electrical field spatial distribution uniformity in a single pixel of MPPCs, which can be used for guiding the optimisation of the fabrication process of MPPCs and their properties. This promising method can naturally be extended to any Geiger avalanche photodiodes (G-APDs) and their arrays.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantum ElectronicsSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207