MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7001867749

Linear & Nonl. optics checks diring LHC injection tests

2009· other· en· W7001867749 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsWestern Forest Products
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrimBetatronSkewAmplitudeOffset (computer science)Polarity (international relations)Large Hadron Collider
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In early LHC commissioning, linear and “higher-order” polarity checks were performed for one octant per beam, by launching suitable free betatron oscillations and then inverting a magnet-circuit polarity or strength. Circuits tested included trim quadrupoles, skew quadrupoles, lattice sextupoles, sextupole spool-pieces, Landau octupoles, and skew sextupoles. A nonzero momentum offset was introduced to enhance the measurement quality. The lowintensity single-pass measurements proved sufficiently sensitive to verify the polarity and the amplitude of (almost) all circuits under investigation, as well as the alignment of some individual trim quadrupoles. A systematic polarity inversion detected by this measurement helped to pin down the origin of observed dispersion errors. Later, the periodic “ring dispersion” was reconstructed from the full first-turn trajectory of an injected off-momentum beam, by removing, at each location, the large incoming dispersion mismatch, forward-propagated via the optics model. Various combinations of inverted trim quadrupoles were considered in this model until reaching a good agreement of reconstructed dispersion and prediction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.014

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research)French-language works237,207