MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scintillating properties of Cs<sub>2</sub>ZrCl<sub>6</sub> crystals in the temperature range of 5–300 K

2025· article· W4415260861 on OpenAlexaff
F. Cappella, P. C. F. Di Stefano, E. Ellingwood, J. Hucker, Thomas Leroy, S.S. Nagorny, V. V. Nahorna, L. Pagnanini, P. Skensved, N. Swidinsky, Pengli Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Instrumentation · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoArthur B. McDonald-Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research InstituteQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScintillationQuenching (fluorescence)IrradiationCrystal (programming language)Range (aeronautics)Atmospheric temperature rangeYield (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A new comprehensive study on the Cs 2 ZrCl 6 (CZC) crystal scintillating properties under different types of irradiation was performed over a wide temperature range from 5 to 300 K. The light yield (LY) at room temperature (RT), measured under irradiation by 662 keV γ quanta of 137 Cs, was evaluated to be 53,300 ± 4,700 photons/MeV corresponding to approximately 71% of its estimated absolute value. The maximum light emission was observed in the temperature interval 135–165 K, where the LY reached 56,900 photons/MeV and 19,700 photons/MeV for γ quanta and α particles, respectively. The quenching factor (QF) for α particles increases smoothly from QF = 0.30 at RT to QF = 0.36 at 135 K. The shape of scintillation pulses induced by α particles is characterized by three time-constants (0.3, 2.5 and 11.8 μs at RT), whereas the average pulse of γ induced events is characterized by two time-constants (1.3 and 11.5 μs at RT). At the same time, scintillating properties and pulse-shape discrimination capability of the CZC exhibit an acute deterioration at temperatures below 135 K. The optimal operating conditions to maximize the scintillating performance of undoped CZC crystals are discussed.

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)0.001
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of InstrumentationSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207