MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041922108 · doi:10.1063/1.3020519

Dynamics of optically injected two-dimensional currents

2008· article· en· W2041922108 on OpenAlexaff
E. Ya. Sherman, R. M. Abrarov, J. E. Sipe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum and electron transport phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsElectronCoulombDisplacement (psychology)Equations of motionSpin (aerodynamics)DragCharge (physics)Charge densityNonlinear systemComputational physicsClassical mechanicsMechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the charge and spin dynamics of optically injected currents in multiple quantum well structures using a hydrodynamic model. The dynamics is very complex even on time scales of the order of 1 ps due to the interplay of Coulomb forces, electron-hole drag effects, and nonlinearity of the equations of motion. Our analysis is based on a numerical approach employing an expansion of the calculated quantities in a Hermite–Gaussian basis. We calculate the evolution of the density of injected carriers, analyze the pattern of charges after the injection, and extract the parameters that characterize the overall charge displacement in the optical pump-probe and terahertz radiation experiments. While these two parameters would take on the same value if the injected charge distributions moved rigidly, we find that their observed values should be different due to the complex behavior of the carrier motion. The spin flows arising from the spin-dependent skew scattering of electron by holes and corresponding spin density distributions are calculated and analyzed.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicQuantum and electron transport phenomenaFrench-language works237,207