Comparison of carbon stripper foils under operational conditions at the Los Alamos proton storage ring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".