MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391463235

Comparison of carbon stripper foils under operational conditions at the Los Alamos proton storage ring

2024· paratext· en· W4391463235 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas Spickerman

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2024
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryNational Nuclear Security AdministrationTRIUMFU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsStorage ringNational laboratoryProtonCarbon fibersNuclear engineeringRing (chemistry)Materials scienceNuclear physicsEnvironmental scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringEngineering physicsPhysicsChemistryStructural engineeringComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the 39{sup th} ICFA Advanced Beam Dynamics Workshop HB 2006 and the 23{sup rd} INTDS World Conference we reported on first results of a test of nanocrystalline diamond foils developed at ORNL under operational conditions at the Los Alamos Proton Storage Ring (PSR). We have continued these tests during the 2006 and 2007 run cycles and have been able to compare the diamond foils with the foils that are normally in use in PSR, which were originally developed by Sugai at KEK. We have gathered valuable information regarding foil lifetime, foil related beam losses and electron emission at the foil. Additional insight was gained under unusual beam conditions where the foiIs are subjected to higher temperatures. In the 2007 run cycle we also tested a Diamond-like-Carbon foil developed at TRIUMF. A Hybrid-Boron-Carbon foil, also developed by Sugai, is presently in use with the PSR production beam. We will summarize our experience with these different foil types.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Same topicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersFrench-language works237,207