MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022189128

Preliminary radiation shielding design for BOOMERANG

2002· article· en· W3022189128 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard J. Donahue

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic shieldingStorage ringLinear particle acceleratorPhysicsBooster (rocketry)ShieldNuclear physicsParticle acceleratorSynchrotron radiationBeam (structure)Nuclear engineeringOpticsEngineeringGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preliminary Radiation Shielding Design for BOOMERANG R. J. Donahue Lawrence Berkeley National Lab June 11, 2003 Abstract Preliminary radiation shielding specifications are presented here for the 3 GeV BOOMERANG Australian synchrotron light source project. At this time the bulk shield walls for the storage ring and injection system (100 MeV Linac and 3 GeV Booster) are considered for siting purposes. Introduction These estimates were prompted by the BOOMERANG Workshop held at LBNL in October, 2002. BOOMERANG is planned to be a 3 GeV, 400 mA 3 rd generation light source with a 20 hr lifetime and 210 m circumference. This corresponds to a stored beam of 1.75 × 10 12 e − . Shielding estimates are made for the storage ring. Booster and LINAC shielding estimates will be made elsewhere. Comparison With Existing/Planned Facilities A comparison of the concrete shielding requirements for existing or planned synchrotron facilities is shown in Table 1. They are the Canadian Light Source (CLS - 2.9 GeV, 500 mA), the SPEAR3 facility at SLAC (3 GeV, 500 mA), and the Advanced Light Source at LBNL (ALS - 1.9 GeV, 400 mA). The 4th column, ALS*, represents the ALS shielding values scaled to 3 GeV and 400 mA for BOOMERANG. Assumptions All beam loss scenarios are assumed to be roughly the same as those of the LBNL Advanced Light Source (ALS)[1]. The ALS storage ring shield walls were divided into three areas; standard walls (8 out of 12 sectors), special walls (3 out of 12 sectors), and injection (1 out of 12 sectors). The

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersFrench-language works237,207