MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Narrow-area Bragg-edge transmission of iron samples using superconducting neutron sensor

2022· article· en· W4292182212 on OpenAlexaff
The Dang Vu, Hiroaki Shishido, Kazuya Aizawa, Takayuki Oku, Kenichi Oikawa, Masahide Harada, Kenji Kojima, Shigeyuki Miyajima, Kazuhiko Soyama, Tomio Koyama, Mutsuo Hidaka, S. Suzuki, M. Tanaka, Alex Malins, Masahiko Machida, Takekazu Ishida

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsPhysicsTransmission (telecommunications)Materials scienceSpectral lineBragg peakNeutronComputational physicsNuclear physicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigates a current-biased kinetic inductance detector (CB-KID) performance by investigating Bragg-edge spectra from the restricted-area neuron transmission of materials. Iron samples with a size of 5 × 5 ×2 mm 3 were used as typical test materials. The ergodic theorem was used to obtain a visible transmission spectrum so that a long-time averaging of a transmission spectrum can alternatively be evaluated using a space average of independently selected area spectra with the same ensemble size. The most visible edges were observed with a limited area sample of 0.43 mm 2 using a minimum time bin of 25 μs in a time-of-flight (ToF) spectrum or a wavelength resolution of 0.0007 nm of each neutron pulse at beamline BL10 of the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex (J-PARC) center. The main Bragg edge of iron as a sum of random 100 ensembles (with an ensemble size of 3.1 × 2.3 μm 2 ) thus obtained has a distinctive signal-to-noise ratio and can be fitted well with the Rietveld Imaging of Transmission Spectra (RITS) program with Miller indices. We consider that our CB-KID system is, in principle, able to analyze the Bragg edge of samples as small as 3.1 × 2.3 μm 2 .

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207