MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997491530 · doi:10.1103/physreva.74.053409

Observation of multiple ionization pathways for OCS in an intense laser field resolved by three-dimensional covariance mapping and visualized by hierarchical ionization topology

2006· article· en· W1997491530 on OpenAlexfundno aff
W. A. Bryan, W R Newell, J H Sanderson, A. J. Langley

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaResearch Councils UK
KeywordsIonizationAtomic physicsPhysicsCoulomb explosionExcited stateTriatomic moleculeIonMoleculeQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The two- and three-body Coulomb explosion of carbonyl sulfide (OCS) by $790\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{nm}$, $50\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{fs}$ laser pulses focused to $\ensuremath{\approx}{10}^{16}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{W}\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}{\mathrm{cm}}^{\ensuremath{-}2}$ has been investigated by the three-dimensional covariance mapping technique. In a triatomic molecule, a single charge state, in this case the trication, has been observed to dissociate into two distinct energy channels. With the aid of a three-dimensional visualization technique to reveal the ionization hierarchy, evidence is presented for the existence of two sets of ionization pathways resulting from these two initial states. While one group of ions can be modeled using a classical enhanced ionization model, the second group, consisting of mainly asymmetric channels, cannot. The results provide clear evidence that an enhanced ionization approach must also be accompanied by an appreciation of the effects of excited ionic states and multielectronic processes.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207