MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

4π NaI(Tl) detector array for in vivo neutron activation analysis

2005· article· en· W79356829 on OpenAlexaff
Soo Hyun Byun, W. V. Prestwich, K. Chin, Fiona E. McNeill, David R. Chettle

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004. · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorSpectrometerPhysicsAmplifierNeutronOpticsDetection limitCalibrationNeutron detectionSensitivity (control systems)Materials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Nuclear physicsOptoelectronicsChemistryElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 4/spl pi/ /spl gamma/-ray spectrometer has been set up at McMaster Accelerator Laboratory for in vivo neutron activation analysis. To achieve an ideal detection geometry eight long NaI(Tl) detectors with square cross sections were arrayed. A central square hole was left empty for sample access. The pulse processing system comprised a signal sum box, a spectroscopy amplifier and an ADC. Spectrum accumulation in coincidence or anticoincidence mode was also feasible by adding separate shaping and time pick-off electronics to each detector unit. The calibration result showed a fairly high efficiency, a peak efficiency of 0.50 at 1332 keV, due to a sufficient detector thickness of 10.2 cm and a length of 40.6 cm. The spectrometer was used for the aluminum analysis in hand phantoms as the first application. The Al sensitivity and the detection limit achieved for a hand dose of 20 mSv are 1,310 cps/mg, 0.24 mg, respectively. The detection limit has been improved by a factor of 2.5.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.006

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004.Same topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207