MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991248014 · doi:10.1109/plasma.2014.7012559

Collisional-radiative model for the diagnostics of low pressure inductively coupled krypton plasma

2014· article· en· W1991248014 on OpenAlexaff
Rajesh Srivastava, Dipti Dipti, Reetesh Kumar Gangwar, Luc Stafford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKryptonPlasmaRadiative transferAtomic physicsPopulationArgonKinetic energyAtmospheric pressureInductively coupled plasmaPhysicsAtmospheric-pressure plasmaSpectroscopyComputational physicsNuclear physicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physics driving the low and atmospheric pressure discharges have been extensively studied using plasma diagnostics based on optical emission spectroscopy (OES). A popular approach is based on the simulation of emission spectrum, obtained from a suitable population kinetic model accounting the various population and depopulation mechanisms, using specific plasma characteristics as the adjustable parameters1. The accuracy of such approach highly depends upon the cross sections used in the kinetic-model. We have recently showed the effectiveness of using fully relativistic fine-structure cross sections for the analysis of low pressure argon plasmas2. In the present work, we have developed a collisional- radiative (CR) model using our fine-structure relativistic-distorted wave (RDW) cross sections. This model is applied to the study a low pressure inductively coupled (ICP) Kr plasma for which the literature is scarce.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207