MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low-energy positron interactions with xenon

2011· article· en· W1974252430 on OpenAlexaff
J. R. Machacek, C. Makochekanwa, A. C. L. Jones, Peter Caradonna, Daniel Slaughter, R P McEachran, James P. Sullivan, S J Buckman, Susan M. Bellm, B. Lohmann, Dmitry V. Fursa, Igor Bray, D. Mueller, A D Stauffer

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsPositroniumPhysicsPositronAtomic physicsXenonRange (aeronautics)Cross section (physics)IonizationEnergy (signal processing)Beam (structure)Nuclear physicsAntiparticleIonElectronLeptonOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-energy interactions of positrons with xenon have been studied both experimentally and theoretically. The experimental measurements were carried out using a trap-based positron beam with an energy resolution of ~80 meV, while the theoretical calculations were carried out using the convergent close-coupling method and the relativistic optical potential approach. Absolute values of the grand total, positronium formation and grand total minus positronium formation cross sections are presented over the energy range of 1–60 eV. Elastic differential cross sections (DCS), for selected energies, are also presented both below and above the positronium formation threshold. Fine energy-step measurements of the positronium formation cross section over the energy range of 4.4–8.4 eV, and measurements of the elastic DCS at the energies of 5.33 and 6.64 eV, have been carried out to investigate the ionization threshold regions corresponding to the 2P3/2 and 2P1/2 states of the Xe+ ion. The present results are compared with both experimental and theoretical values from the literature where available.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations29
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207