MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231748360 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2001.1008524

Low-energy protons scanning of intentionally partially damaged silicon MESA radiation detectors

2005· article· en· W4231748360 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Houdayer, C. Lebel, C. Leroy, V. Linhart, J.J. Mares, S. Pospisil, B. Sopko

Bibliographic record

Venue2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (Cat. No.01CH37310) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorProtonSiliconPhysicsIrradiationOhmic contactDiodeAtomic physicsMaterials scienceRadiationOpticsNuclear physicsOptoelectronicsElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main aim of this work was to measure the spectroscopic response of intentionally damaged MESA silicon detectors. A uniformly damaged region was created using protons delivered by the Montreal University 6 MV tandem accelerator at different energies and fluences. Only the back half of the detector was damaged. The vacancy density created in the damaged region was built at a level of 7/spl times/10/sup 15/ vacancies/cm/sup 3/. The detector responses were scanned over their whole volume with protons of well defined ranges. Their response characteristics were studied using protons of 9 different energies. The highest energy was selected for allowing the protons to reach precisely the ohmic side (n/sup +/-side) of the 296 /spl mu/m thick detector. The scanning of the detector from the undamaged front side was performed with three different proton energies of ranges within the undamaged region. Two proton energies were selected for probing the transient region extending between the damaged and undamaged regions of the detector. Three energies of protons were chosen to probe the damaged region of the diode. The same set of energies was selected for the study of the detector spectroscopic features while illuminating the detector back side. The measured spectroscopic responses of the irradiated detectors were compared to the response of the undamaged detector. The charge collection efficiency (CCE) in the undamaged, transient and damaged regions of the detector volume was determined.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (Cat. No.01CH37310)Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207