MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237456405 · doi:10.1109/redw.2007.4342529

Introduction

2007· article· en· W4237456405 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiation Effects in Electronics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Radiation Effects Data Workshop (REDW) is part of the Nuclear and Space Radiation Effect Conference (NSREC) Technical Program. It is held as a separate poster session with a separate Workshop Record Publication. Posters were presented during the 2007 NSREC held at the Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, on July 25. The purpose of the REDW is to make available to the radiation effect community high quality radiation effects data. It also provides descriptions of radiation effects test facilities, standards, and environments. The Workshop Record published each year is a permanent archive of the REDW. The 2007 Workshop Record has thirty-nine high quality papers covering a broad range of topics including: total ionizing dose, displacement damage, and single particle effects on a large number of electronic devices, integrated circuits and detectors; test methodologies; environment and facilities. In addition, like the conference, there is substantial international participation that includes presentations from Canada, England, Finland, France, and Spain, as well as the United States. This Workshop Record contains the largest number of papers published to date. Although the Workshop Record provide a cumulative index that can be used to locate papers based on author and title, it is difficult to search for response data on a particular part number, type, or radiation effect. To simplify this activity searchable tables covering the Workshop Records 1992-2005 were prepared and published in 2006 Workshop Record. This year, a searchable table covering 2006 Workshop Record is presented.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiation Effects in ElectronicsFrench-language works237,207