MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1480563117 · doi:10.1109/plasma.1989.166097

Experimental study of the influence of the gas pressure and of the wave frequency on the spatial distributions of excited atoms in a surface wave produced plasma

2003· article· en· W1480563117 on OpenAlexaff
J. Margot-Chaker, M. Moisan, André Ricard, C. M. Ferreira, A. B. Sá

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcited stateAtomic physicsMetastabilityPlasmaExcitationElectric fieldRadiative transferSurface waveField (mathematics)Computational physicsPhysicsOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Form only given, as follows. The authors have reviewed the experimental study of the spatial distribution of excited atoms in plasmas, which reflects the kinetic processes of the discharge. In surface-wave-produced plasmas (SWP) the radial distributions of metastable and radiative atoms are related to those of both the electric field intensity and the electron density. Knowledge of SWPs has improved as a result of the extension of measurements of excited-atom distributions to a larger range of wave frequencies, gas pressures, and electric field azimuthal configurations. In addition, a tomographic method has made it possible to achieve an excellent radial and axial resolution for the study of the optically thin spectral lines and to extend measurements to experimental situations that could not be studied previously. Comparison of these results to predictions of a surface-wave-produced-plasma model that couples wave and plasma equations shows discrepancies that can be explained by two-step excitation rather than direct excitation from the ground level as assumed in the model.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasmaFrench-language works237,207