Performance of the CMS Hadron Calorimeter with Cosmic Ray Muons and LHC Beam Data

The CMS Hadron Calorimeter in the barrel, endcap and forward regions is fully commissioned. Cosmic ray data were taken with and without magnetic field at the surface hall and after installation in the experimental hall, hundred meters underground. Various measurements were also performed during the few days of beam in the LHC in September 2008. Calibration parameters were extracted, and the energy response of the HCAL determined from test beam data has been checked

Performance of the CMS hadron calorimeter with cosmic ray muons and LHC beam data

This is the Pre-print version of the Article. The official published version of the Paper can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2010 IOPThe CMS Hadron Calorimeter in the barrel, endcap and forward regions is fully commissioned. Cosmic ray data were taken with and without magnetic field at the surface hall and after installation in the experimental hall, hundred meters underground. Various measurements were also performed during the few days of beam in the LHC in September 2008. Calibration parameters were extracted, and the energy response of the HCAL determined from test beam data has been checked.This work is supported by FMSR (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); Academy of Sciences and NICPB (Estonia); Academy of Finland, ME, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NKTH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); NRF (Korea); LAS (Lithuania); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); PAEC (Pakistan); SCSR (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan); MST and MAE (Russia); MSTDS (Serbia); MICINN and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); NSC (Taipei); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA)

Materiality - The future of Swedish municipal sustainability reporting? : An exploratory & qualitative case study on municipal materiality analysis of Agenda-2030 key figures.

Studien visar att materialitetsanalys till viss del redan sker i kommunal verksamhet när de upprättar hållbarhetsredovisning. Däremot är denna i många fall mycket ostrukturerad och i vissa fall reflekterar inte kommunerna över att de prioriterar information. Materialitetsanalysen som utfördes av kommunerna visade dels att Agenda 2030-nyckeltalen som är ämnade att användas och implementeras i sin helhet i många fall är svårhanterlig med grund i kommunernas självstyre och unika sammanhang. Vidare visade studien att materialitetsanalysen kan vara användbar för att hitta de nyckeltal bland Agenda 2030-nyckeltalen som faktiskt är användbara för en specifik kommun. Detta eftersom vad som är att anse som materiellt eller inte till största del verkar vara helt beroende på varje enskild kommuns egen uppfattning. Vad som statuerar ett materiellt nyckeltal är alltså mycket beroende på varje enskild kommun. Däremot är det viktigt för kommunerna att nyckeltalet faktiskt går att arbeta med. Huruvida kommunen tidigare haft fram- eller motgångar med nyckeltalet tycks inte vara av någon större vikt. Matrisen låter också kommunerna reflektera kring och analysera nyckeltalen vilket kan utgöra ett gott komplement till nyckeltalen i hållbarhetsredovisningen. Kommunerna är bekanta med Agenda 2030 och vikten av att implementera denna i sin hållbarhetsredovisning. Materialitetsanalysen tillåter detta att ske systematiskt och är användbart för att ta hänsyn till varje kommuns förutsättningar. På så vis närmar sig kommunerna materiella hållbarhetsredovisningar med substans snarare än generella kopior av varandra med intetsägande nyckeltal. Detta innebär också att legitimitetsgapet mot samhället minskas. Explicit tryck i form av lagar för att driva på kommunal hållbarhetsredovisning medför risker. Detta kan bestå av att information tas med för att tillgodose ett lagkrav och inte för att det är materiellt. Materialitetsanalysen har en plats i kommunal hållbarhetsredovisning, detta är möjligt utan att tvinga dit den med lagar. Genom att belysa användbarheten och det värde en strukturerad analys av nyckeltal eller annan information ger hållbarhetsredovisningen kan också en norm bildas som främjar kvalitet framför inställsamhet.The study shows that materiality analysis to some extent already takes place in municipal activities when they prepare sustainability reports. However, in many cases this is unstructured and in some cases the municipalities do not reflect on the fact that they prioritize information. The materiality analysis carried out by the municipalities showed that the Agenda 2030 key figures that are intended to be used and implemented in their entirety are in many cases difficult to handle and not suitable as a national standard based on the municipalities' autonomy and unique contexts. Furthermore, the study showed that the materiality analysis can be useful for finding the key figures among the Agenda 2030 key figures that are useful for a specific municipality. This is because what is to be regarded as material or not largely seems to be dependent on each individual municipality's own perception. What constitutes a material key figure is thus highly dependent on each individual municipality. On the other hand, it is important for the municipalities that the key figure is operational. Whether the municipality has previously had successes or setbacks with the key figure does not seem to be of any major importance to if it is to be regarded material or not.The matrix also allows the municipalities to reflect on and analyze the key figures, which can be a good complement to the key figures in the sustainability report. The municipalities are familiar with Agenda 2030 and the importance of implementing this in their sustainability report. The materiality analysis allows this to take place systematically and is useful for considering the conditions of each municipality. In this way, the municipalities approach material sustainability reports with substance rather than general copies of each other with bland key figures. Doing this will help the municipal to reduce the legitimacy gap. Explicit pressure in the form of laws to push for municipal sustainability reporting entails risks. This may consist of information being disclosed to satisfy a legal requirement and not because it is material. The materiality analysis has a place in municipal sustainability reporting, and it can take this without being forced to do so by laws. By highlighting the usefulness and the value that a structured analysis of key figures or other information provides in the sustainability report, a norm can also be formed that promotes quality over conformity in municipal sustainability reporting

Performance of the CMS hadron calorimeter with cosmic ray muons and LHC beam data

This is the Pre-print version of the Article. The official published version of the Paper can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2010 IOPThe CMS Hadron Calorimeter in the barrel, endcap and forward regions is fully commissioned. Cosmic ray data were taken with and without magnetic field at the surface hall and after installation in the experimental hall, hundred meters underground. Various measurements were also performed during the few days of beam in the LHC in September 2008. Calibration parameters were extracted, and the energy response of the HCAL determined from test beam data has been checked.This work is supported by FMSR (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); Academy of Sciences and NICPB (Estonia); Academy of Finland, ME, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NKTH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); NRF (Korea); LAS (Lithuania); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); PAEC (Pakistan); SCSR (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan); MST and MAE (Russia); MSTDS (Serbia); MICINN and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); NSC (Taipei); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA)