MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Concepts and Considerations for FCC-ee Top-Up Injection Strategies

2022· article· en· W6925484117 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Filter Design and Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsBeam (structure)ColliderElectromagnetOrbit (dynamics)Multipole expansionMagnet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Future Circular electron-positron Collider (FCC-ee) is proposed to operate in four modes, with beam energies from 45.6 GeV (Z-pole) to 182.5 GeV (tt-bar production) and luminosities up to 4.6×10³⁶ cm²s⁻¹. At the highest energies the beam lifetime would be less than one hour, meaning that top-up injection will be crucial to maximise the integrated luminosity. Two top-up injection strategies are considered here: conventional injection, employing a closed orbit bump and septum, and multipole-kicker injection, with a pulsed multipole magnet and septum. On-axis and off-axis injections are considered for both. We present a comparison of these injection strategies taking into account aspects such as spatial constraints, machine protection, disturbance to the stored beam and injection efficiency. We overview potential kicker and septum technologies for each.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.259 · 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