MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980094686 · doi:10.1063/1.1789623

Effect of electron temperature fluctuations on slowly swept Langmuir probe measurements

2004· article· en· W1980094686 on OpenAlexaff
D.L. Rudakov, J.A. Boedo, R. A. Moyer, P.C. Stangeby, A.G. McLean, J.G. Watkins

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLangmuir probePlasmaPlasma diagnosticsAmplitudePhysicsElectron temperatureElectronAtomic physicsPlasma oscillationPhase (matter)VoltageExponential functionOpticsComputational physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Swept Langmuir probes are widely used to measure electron temperature (Te) in laboratory plasmas by performing an exponential fit to the measured volt–ampere (I–V) characteristic. Often the probe voltage sweep frequency is much lower than the characteristic frequencies of the plasma fluctuations and a time-averaged I–V characteristic is used for the fit. We show by numerical modeling that in the presence of Te fluctuations with frequencies well above the voltage sweep frequency this standard technique applied to a swept single probe tends to read higher than the actual time-averaged Te provided no correlated plasma potential (Vp) fluctuations are present. In the presence of coupled Te and Vp fluctuations a slowly swept single probe may read either higher or lower than the average Te, depending on the relative amplitude and phase of the temperature and potential fluctuations. In contrast, swept double probe measurements of Te are virtually unaffected by either Te or Vp fluctuations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0080.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207