MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401863137 · doi:10.23977/jeeem.2024.070217

Characterization of Charge Collection Properties of High Time-Resolution Silicon Carbide Detectors

2024· article· en· W4401863137 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electrotechnology Electrical Engineering and Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilicon carbideCharacterization (materials science)Charge (physics)DetectorMaterials scienceHigh resolutionSiliconOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyPhysicsRemote sensingOpticsGeologyParticle physicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The charge collection characteristics of silicon carbide detectors in the field of high time resolution detection are studied in this paper. Aiming at the limitations of traditional silicon detectors in high temperature and high radiation environment, a high time resolution detector design based on 4H-SiC material is proposed. Due to its wide band gap, high carrier mobility, and excellent radiation resistance, 4H-SiC is ideal for extreme detection environments. By optimizing the process, high charge collection efficiency (CCE) and excellent temporal resolution were achieved, with CCE reaching 90% and temporal resolution reaching 35±0.2ps at 100V reverse bias. The experimental results show that the SiC detector has a series of excellent properties compared with the silicon-based detector. In addition, the charge collection characteristics of SiC detectors with different bias and the saturation behavior of charge collection in the range of 150~350V are also discussed. Finally, the application prospects of SiC detector in nuclear radiation monitoring, medical imaging and space exploration are prospected. With the advancement of technology and the reduction of cost, SiC detectors will demonstrate their unique value in more fields.

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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electrotechnology Electrical Engineering and ManagementSame topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207