MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982318307 · doi:10.1063/1.1416107

Synchrotron infrared photoacoustic spectroscopy

2001· article· en· W1982318307 on OpenAlexafffund
Kirk H. Michaelian, Richard S. Jackson, C. C. Homes

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBeamlineSynchrotronSynchrotron radiationInfraredMaterials scienceOpticsSynchrotron Radiation SourcePhotoacoustic spectroscopyAperture (computer memory)Infrared spectroscopySpectral lineSpectroscopyPhotoacoustic effectPhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of synchrotron radiation (SR) as a far- and mid-infrared source in the measurement of photoacoustic Fourier transform infrared spectra of solids is demonstrated for the first time in this work. Initial experiments were performed at beamline U10A at the National Synchrotron Light Source, Brookhaven National Laboratory. For synchrotron photoacoustic spectroscopy to be feasible, it must yield results superior to those obtained with a conventional thermal (Globar®) source; accordingly, SR and Globar® photoacoustic spectra recorded under similar conditions were compared in detail. The intensities of SR far-infrared photoacoustic spectra were found to be consistently greater than the corresponding Globar® spectra. At shorter wavelengths, SR always underfills the effective aperture (or, alternately, sample size); SR is a superior source in a spectral region that is a function of this aperture. The high wave number limit of this region exhibits a power-law dependence on aperture size. This investigation also showed that the entire mid-infrared photoacoustic spectrum is more intense using SR and apertures smaller than approximately 0.5 mm.

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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207