Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary of the state-of-the-art developments in Opaque Scintillation today. Most of the developments known today have happened — and are still happening to my knowledge — within the LiquidO collaboration, including a broad range of scintillation experts from (alphabetically) Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Portugal, the UK and the US, with a growing fraction of specialised photo-chemical expertise. The concept and utility of Opaque Scintillation were pioneered upon the LiquidO conception (before the collaboration existed) since opacity, via extremely high scattering, was necessary. Some of the elements for the opaque scintillators were already there, while they were typically regarded as impractical (or even useless) for particle detection. Using scintillation in LiquidO is essential for MeV sub-atomic particle detection. Still, LiquidO has been demonstrated to work without scintillation in other contexts (e.g. higher energies). Nonetheless, today, much effort is devoted to exploring LiquidO’s ability to adapt to many types of opaque scintillators. In fact, several options are being considered in parallel as part of today’s explorations. Some developments I am aware of remain confidential; hence, this is only hinted at to illustrate the level of ongoing R&D activity. Given this presentation's time limitations and broad audience, only a general description is provided, including some images to illustrate the options. However, I provided a simplified comparison (not free of caveats) between transparent and opaque scintillator options that may help as a rough guideline. Opaque scintillators do offer clear advantages regarding topology and particle imaging, for which they have been designed and optimised so far; i.e. LiquidO. It is clear that, as opposed to the transparent technology (tuned to excel over many decades), there is much to be done in terms of new explorations (i.e. new chemistry, etc.) and the optimisation of today’s performance (light yield, etc.). The opaque medium solution nonetheless opens a revolution potential for doping (a scattering element), but this needs far more work. Transparent solutions remain the optimal choice in some experimental scenarios.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.020 |
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".