Role of two-electron excitation-ionization processes in the ionization of lithium atoms by fast ion impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study excitation and ionization in the 1.5-MeV/amu ${\mathrm{O}}^{8+}$-Li collision system, which was the subject of a recent reaction-microscope-type experiment [D. Fischer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 113202 (2012)]. Starting from an independent-electron model based on determinantal wave functions and using a single-electron basis generator method calculation and a single-electron continuum distorted-wave with eikonal initial-state calculation, we show that pure single ionization of a lithium $K$-shell electron is too weak a process to explain the measured electron-energy-differential cross section. Rather, our analysis suggests that two-electron excitation-ionization processes occur and have to be taken into account when comparing with the data. Good agreement is obtained only if we replace the independent-electron calculation by an independent-event model for one of the excitation-ionization processes and also take a shake-off process into account.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".