Benchmarking experiments for the proton backscattering on 23Na, 31P and natS up to 3.5MeV

Quantifying nitrogen in GeSbTe:N alloys

“…This is explicit in the IAEA TECDOC (ref. 19 45) showing a formal protocol for benchmarking. We should comment here that "benchmarking" is implicitly used in the present work (indirectly in the treatment of the SiN x transfer standard), but has never previously been used to formally determine a contribution to an uncertainty budget.…”

Study ofnatMg(d,d 0 ) reaction at detector angles between 90° and 170°, for the energy range E d,lab =1660–1990 keV

“…Nonetheless, a thin oxidized layer, of the order of 1500 Â 10 15 at/cm 2 on the targets surface was unavoidably formed, leaving a rather narrow window (for validation purposes) between the Mg and O surface energy signals. Thus, starting at E d = 1750 keV, benchmarking spectra were acquired with an energy step of 50-100 keV, following the methodology presented in [14]. However, as shown in Fig.…”

“…The ADC calibration and the treatment of the target surface roughness was done following the methodology presented in [14]. As shown in Fig.…”

On the accuracy of Total-IBA

“…Following the work of Paneta et al 81 82 who used the standard method of deriving the covariance matrix: however, they also showed that there existed quite large systematic errors that are unquantifiable in detail, commenting that in such cases these standard statistical methods are not strictly valid. They also commented that Mayer's earlier (2012 83 ) approach to assessing EBS scattering cross-section uncertainties cannot be correct in principle, although pragmatically it seems very helpful (provided a nuclear model is available to allow direct comparability of data for different scattering angles).…”