MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040102226 · doi:10.1139/p07-103

The role of EBIT in X-ray laser research

2008· article· en· W2040102226 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph Nilsen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsElectron beam ion trapLaserAtomic physicsIonIonizationPlasmaNational laboratoryWavelengthElectronOpticsNuclear physicsEngineering physicsCathode ray

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early 1980s, the X-ray laser program required a new level of understanding and measurements of the atomic physics of highly charged ions. The electron beam ion trap (EBIT) was developed and built at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) as part of the effort to understand and measure the cross sections and wavelengths of highly charged ions. This paper explains some of the early history of EBIT and how it was used to help develop X-ray lasers. EBIT’s capability was unique and some of the experimental results obtained over the years, related to X-ray lasers, will be shown. As X-ray lasers have now become a table-top tool, new areas of research that involve understanding the index of refraction in partially ionized plasmas will be discussed. In addition, new areas where EBIT may be able to further contribute will be suggested.PACS Nos.: 52.38.–r, 52.25.Os, 52.70.–m, 42.55.Vc, 07.60.Ly, 29.30.Kv, 31.15.–p

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207