Long term behaviour of ionization gauges
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Triode gauges were found to be significantly more stable than Bayard-Alpert gauges, especially after intermediate exposure to atmospheric pressure.
“In Ref. [155] triode gauges were found to be significantly more stable than BAGs, especially after intermediate exposure to atmospheric pressure.”
From A review on hot cathode ionisation gauges with focus on a suitable design for measurement accuracy and stability (2020) · cites this paper as [155]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jousten, K., Boineau, F., Bundaleski, N., Illgen, C., Setina, J., Teodoro, O. M. N. D., Vicar, M., & Wüest, M. (2020) · Vacuum · doi:10.1016/j.vacuum.2020.109545 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
- Authors
- Poulter, K., & Sutton, C.
- Venue
- Vacuum
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1981-03
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 147-150
- ISSN
- 0042-207X
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
