MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049879226 · doi:10.1021/jp066755v

Experimental Evidence for the Curve Crossing Mechanism for Collisional Excitation in keV N<sub>2</sub><sup>+•</sup>/He Collisions by Emission Spectroscopy

2007· article· en· W2049879226 on OpenAlexaff
Clement Poon, P. Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtomic physicsExcitationIonPhysicsCollisional excitationCollisionSpectral lineEmission spectrumSpectrometerRange (aeronautics)IonizationMaterials scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collision-induced emission (CIE) experiments were carried out by coupling a spectrograph and charge-coupled device detector (CCD) to a commercial analytical mass spectrometer. An Einzel lens and a deceleration-reacceleration lens assembly as described in the current article were installed in the mass spectrometer to allow for the deceleration of the ions before collision. Collision-induced emission spectra of N2+*/He collisions at lab frame collision energies from 2 to 8 keV were obtained from 190-1020 nm. The emissions were assigned to the Deltav=+2, +1, 0, -1, -2 vibrational transition progression in the N2+* B 2Sigmau+-->X 2Sigmag+ electronic transition as well as some atomic lines from the fragments N+, N* and the target gas He. N2+* A 2u-->X 2Sigmag+ emission was also observed but was very weak due to the long lifetime of the A 2u state. The relative intensities of the N2+*, N, and N+ emissions are independent of the ion translational energy within the studied energy range. This observation supports the curve-crossing mechanism for collisional excitation, suggesting that a complicated sequence of curve-crossings takes place upon collisional activation.

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)0.001
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 score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207