MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389205921 · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15763

Energy Calibration in the DEAP-3600 Dark Matter Detector

2023· dissertation· en· W4389205921 on OpenAlexaff
K. Sobotkiewich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDetectorDark matterCalibrationPhotomultiplierScintillatorEnergy (signal processing)Sensitivity (control systems)OpticsPosition (finance)Computational physicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DEAP-3600 is a direct dark matter detector using ∼ 3300 kg of liquid argon, located 2 km underground at SNOLAB.It is a single phase liquid argon scintillator using pulse-shape discrimination techniques to remove backgrounds.This allows for the sensitivity required to measure spin-independent interactions with Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), a leading dark matter candidate.Particles entering the detector produce scintillation light which is guided into one of the detector's 255 photomultiplier tubes.Calibration sources for gammas, betas and neutrons are used to obtain the light yield of different event types.The energy of an event is then determined by counting the number of photoelectrons while knowing the associated light yield.In order to properly calibrate the energy measured in the detector, a new corrected energy variable has been developed for the DEAP-3600 analysis using a three year data set.The new energy variable corrects for the number of working photomultiplier tubes and time drift with a RMS uncertainty of 0.096%.The uncertainty of the energy due to position dependence is constrained to be < 3.5% between the center and the edge of the detector.The effect of the energy scale non-linearity has been determined up to ∼ 10 MeV, with the uncertainty constrained to be < 7.3%.The overall residual uncertainty of the measured energy is constrained to be < 8.1%, assuming no correlations between the dependencies.Comparisons between data and Monte Carlo generated events were also done to validate the simulation model.i you are proud of me and I really wish you could see how much I have grown thanks to you.Lastly, Mon Amour, without you I would not have the life that I have now.You mean the world to me and I cannot express enough how much you have changed

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena→French-language works237,207→