MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003535843 · doi:10.1103/physreva.67.012902

Stochastic treatment of nonequilibrium ion stopping in solids

2003· article· en· W2003535843 on OpenAlexafffund
Z. L. Mišković, F. O. Goodman, W. -K. Liu, You‐Nian Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsProjectilePhysicsAtomic physicsIonStopping powerAdiabatic processNon-equilibrium thermodynamicsElectronNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the energy loss of fast, hydrogenlike ions in thin solid foils, in the regime prior to the establishment of the ion-charge equilibrium. The projectile-charge evolution is described by a nonstationary, continuous-time Markov process, while the target response is described by a time-dependent dielectric-response formalism. We first derive the projectile self-energy in the presence of charge exchange, which is used to determine the bound-electron density in a self-consistent manner, by minimizing the total projectile energy in an adiabatic approximation. An expression for the ion energy-loss distribution is then used to derive the average value of the stopping power as a function of the traversal time in the foil, taking into account the projectile screening by the bound electron. The results of calculations for He ions in Al foils show significant coherence effects on the energy losses in the pre-equilibrium regime, which are interpreted by the overlap between the time delay in the target response and the characteristic time scale for the charge-changing collisions of the projectile with the target atoms.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207