MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Temporally Controlled Modulation of Antihydrogen Production and the Temperature Scaling of Antiproton-Positron Recombination

2008· article· en· W2011374514 on OpenAlexaff
M. Fujiwara, Michele Amoretti, C. Amsler, G. Bonomi, A. Bouchta, P. D. Bowe, C. Canali, C. Carraro, C. L. Cesar, M. Charlton, M. Doser, A. Fontana, R. Funakoshi, P. Genova, J. S. Hangst, R. Hayano, L. V. Jørgensen, A. Kellerbauer, V. Lagomarsino, R. Landua, E. Lodi–Rizzini, M. Macrı́, N. Madsen, G. Manuzio, D. Mitchard, P. Montagna, H.S. Pruys, C. Regenfus, A. Rotondi, G. Testera, A. Variola, L. Venturelli, D. P. van der Werf, Y. Yamazaki, N. Zurlo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsAntihydrogenPhysicsAntiprotonPositronAntimatterNuclear physicsAtomic physicsPenning trapPlasmaTrap (plumbing)ElectronProton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate temporally controlled modulation of cold antihydrogen production by periodic RF heating of a positron plasma during antiproton-positron mixing in a Penning trap. Our observations have established a pulsed source of atomic antimatter, with a rise time of about 1 s, and a pulse length ranging from 3 to 100 s. Time-sensitive antihydrogen detection and positron plasma diagnostics, both capabilities of the ATHENA apparatus, allowed detailed studies of the pulsing behavior, which in turn gave information on the dependence of the antihydrogen production process on the positron temperature T. Our data are consistent with power law scaling T (-1.1+/-0.5) for the production rate in the high temperature regime from approximately 100 meV up to 1.5 eV. This is not in accord with the behavior accepted for conventional three-body recombination.

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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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