MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032170790 · doi:10.1063/1.2138800

Effect of ambient air pressure on debris redeposition during laser ablation of glass

2005· article· en· W2032170790 on OpenAlexafffund
Shashank Singh, Michael A. Argument, Ying Y. Tsui, R. Fedosejevs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDebrisAmbient pressureFluenceMaterials scienceLaser ablationScanning electron microscopeImpact craterOptical microscopeLaserBorosilicate glassAblationAtmospheric pressureSpallationOpticsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialChemistryGeologyMeteorologyAstrobiologyEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of ambient air pressure on the redeposition of debris, ablated from the zinc borosilicate glass target using 6ns, 266nm laser pulses, has been studied for incident fluences of 3–18J∕cm2. Measurements were carried out in air at pressures ranging from 10–750Torr. Scanning electron microscopy and optical microscope observations of the target surface were made to analyze the morphology of the redeposited debris. It was found that for higher values of the laser fluence and ambient pressure, the target surface is extremely rough, with large pieces of molten glass and debris fragments deposited near and around the ablation site. The profile of the redeposited debris also shows signs of a strong shock-wave-cleaning effect and possibly a Rayleigh-Taylor instability at higher pressures. Contrary to this, under low-pressure environment the surface of the redeposited debris is cleaner and smoother, with minimal damage around the ablated crater. The measured radius of the debris field was found to be proportional to the inverse cube root of the ambient pressure, consistent with the stagnation distance of the expansion plume when energy balance with the displaced air is considered. In addition to this, the mass of the redeposited debris was estimated from the measured optical thickness of the film and compared to the ablated mass. In the range below 100Torr, both the mass of the redeposited debris and the percentage of the ablated mass which was redeposited were found to increase with the increasing fluence and the ambient air pressure.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations40
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasmaFrench-language works237,207