MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neutron transmission imaging system with a superconducting kinetic inductance detector

2024· article· en· W4399568330 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, Masahiko Machida, Shuichi Kawamata, Takekazu Ishida

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinetic inductanceDetectorSuperconductivityNuclear physicsKinetic energyPhysicsTransmission (telecommunications)InductanceNeutronMaterials scienceNuclear engineeringNuclear magnetic resonanceOpticsCondensed matter physicsElectrical engineeringEngineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We optimized the design and operating conditions of our superconducting neutron detector to improve spatial resolution. We obtained the best spatial resolution of 10 μm when a Gd Siemens star pattern was mounted in close contact with the detector. Although there is a trade-off between a spatial resolution and an easiness of replacing samples, we built our superconducting neutron imaging system for measuring in both the room-temperature samples with a proper collimation ratio L/D for achieving a reasonable spatial resolution and a cryogenic temperature with the best spatial resolution for certain purposes. In this study, we obtained neutron transmission images of various samples when they were cooled down with the superconducting neutron detector. We compared the effect of a different sample-detector distance on a spatial resolution when the samples were placed either at cryogenic temperature or at room temperature. We also confirmed that our CB-KID sensor was able to observe the neutron transmission coefficient over wider energies of pulsed neutrons. We found the appearance of clear Bragg dips by the measurements of natural FeS 2 single crystals and succeeded in mapping the distribution of differently-oriented crystals by choosing several Bragg dips of the FeS 2 crystals to compose the transmission images.

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 score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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