MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1605932242 · doi:10.1109/plasma.2002.1030320

Thomson scattering in dense plasmas using X-ray laser probe

2003· article· en· W1605932242 on OpenAlexaff
W. Rozmus, H. A. Baldis, James Dunn, M. E. Foord, J. F. Myatt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasmaThomson scatteringLaserWarm dense matterBremsstrahlungScatteringAtomic physicsInertial confinement fusionPhysicsPlasma diagnosticsIonizationRadiationAbsorption (acoustics)ElectronOpticsComputational physicsNuclear physicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given, as follows. Application of x-ray beams as probes in Thomson scattering experiments allows investigations of plasmas in new regimes of high plasma densities. Compressed fuel in the inertial fusion experiments, ultra short laser pulse produced plasmas for X-ray sources, foam plasmas used in radiation transport studies, shock compressed plasmas for equation of state experiments are examples of ionized gases which can be only diagnosed with short wavelength probes. When fully developed, TS from high density plasmas will justify further development of radiation sources such as x-ray and free electron lasers. Imminent prospect for these advances has motivated our theoretical study. Discussion of the TS cross-section in dense laser produced plasmas will highlight specific issues of laser heated plasmas such as small volumes and inhomogeneity of a scattering region, lack of a coherence in probe beams, required spectral resolution and intensity of the X-ray probe. Sufficient brightness of the probe is necessary to overcome bremsstrahlung emission and absorption in dense plasmas. These limiting factors must be addressed before incoherent TS can be used as an effective diagnostic tool at high densities.

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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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