MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modified optical computed tomography scanner for low temperature scanning

2023· article· en· W4388698797 on OpenAlexaff
Nathaniel Woolvett, Kevin Jordan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerMaterials scienceIrradiationCondensationOpticsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large radiochromic hydrogels, such as ferrous xylenol formulations require several hours to warm from the storage temperature of 278 K to 293 K for optical CT scanning and irradiation. This warm-up time can be avoided if gels are scanned at 278 K, resulting in a more practical 3D dose measurement. In this study a Vista 16 optical CT scanner was modified to allow scanning at 278 K, below the temperature where condensation forms on the aquarium windows. The refractive index matching liquid was first cooled to 276K in order to cool the aquarium as it was filled. The modification involved pumping cool, dry air into the aquarium scanner compartment to provide a positive pressure, preventing condensation on the aquarium windows. A warming rate of 2 K per hour was achieved with passive cooling which relied on the liquid-filled aquarium’s thermal mass. The radiochromic reaction rate decreased with temperature, requiring an increased post-irradiation wait time from 1 hour at 293 K to 1.5 hours at 278 K. In addition, initial sample transmission was greater by avoiding the auto-darkening that occurred as the samples were warmed from 278 K to 293 K over several hours. This increase in transmission resulted in a larger dynamic range for the dosimeter system.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207