MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1504702084 · doi:10.1063/1.4928092

Temperature dependence of pump coupling in two-plasmon decay instability of an electromagnetic wave in homogeneous fluid plasmas

2015· article· en· W1504702084 on OpenAlexaff
Guan Sik Cho, Jewon Lee, Minhyon Jeon, Ying Y. Tsui

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Plasmas · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersInje University
KeywordsPhysicsAtomic physicsPlasmaElectronElectromagnetic radiationCoupling (piping)Electric fieldInstabilityPlasma oscillationCondensed matter physicsOpticsMechanicsMaterials scienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have re-examined the pump-coupling term of the growth rate, in the fluid-Maxwell theory for the weak-damping limit of the two-plasmon decay instability of an electromagnetic wave (pump) in a homogeneous plasma. We found that the maximum pump coupling is obtained as (k0v0/4)(2TL/T−1) for electron temperatures T exceeding TL[≡(2/9)(1−4n/nc)(mc2)]. The well-known result for the pump coupling as k0v0/4 is only valid for T<TL. We found that the configuration of electron plasma waves is described by a lemniscate (an 8-shaped curve) for T>TL and by a hyperbola for T<TL. Thus, the pump coupling is reduced by electron heating and vanishes at the temperature equal to 2TL. The temperature-dependent pump coupling can occur even for a relatively cold plasma because the boundary temperature TL can be small if the electron density n is sufficiently close to the quarter critical (nc/4). Here, k0 is the pump wavenumber, v0 is the velocity amplitude of an electron oscillating under the pump electric field, nc(≡ω02m/4πe2) is the critical density, m is the electron particle mass, c is the speed of light in free space, ω0 is the pump angular frequency, and e is the electron particle charge.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of PlasmasSame topicLaser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207