MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Net versus gross erosion of high-<i>Z</i>materials in the divertor of DIII-D

2014· article· en· W1978383255 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysica Scripta · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFusion materials and technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivertorDIII-DTungstenErosionMolybdenumMaterials scienceDeposition (geology)PlasmaTokamakMetallurgyNuclear physicsPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A substantial reduction of net compared to gross erosion of molybdenum and tungsten was observed in experiments conducted in the lower divertor of DIII-D using the divertor material evaluation system. Post-exposure net erosion of molybdenum and tungsten films was measured by Rutherford backscattering (RBS) yielding net erosion rates of 0.4–0.7 nm s−1 for Mo and ∼0.14 nm s−1 for W. Gross erosion was estimated using RBS on a 1 mm diameter sample, where re-deposition is negligible. Net erosion on a 1 cm diameter sample was reduced compared to gross erosion by factors of ∼2 for Mo and ∼3 for W. The experiment was modeled with the REDEP/WBC erosion/re-deposition code package coupled to the Ion Transport in Materials and Compounds—DYNamics mixed-material code, with plasma conditions supplied by the Onion skin modeling + Eirene + Divimp for edGE modeling code with input from divertor Langmuir probes. The code-calculated net/gross erosion rate ratios of 0.46 for Mo and 0.33 for W are in agreement with the experiment.

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.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.216 · 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