MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052916780 · doi:10.1103/physreva.76.023831

Demonstration of the 101st harmonic generated from a laser-produced manganese plasma

2007· article· en· W2052916780 on OpenAlexafffund
R. A. Ganeev, L. B. Elouga Bom, J. C. Kieffer, M. Suzuki, Hiroto Kuroda, T. Ozaki

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesInstitut national de la recherche scientifique
KeywordsPhysicsHarmonicsAtomic physicsPlasmaHigh harmonic generationWavelengthHarmonicIonLaserManganeseOpticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate the generation of the 101st harmonic (wavelength $\ensuremath{\lambda}=7.9\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{nm}$) from manganese plasma, which is generated using the plasma high-order harmonic technique. We also investigate the variation of the high-order harmonic distribution from the manganese plasma plume as a function of the prepulse and main pulse intensities. The harmonic cutoff was at the 31st order, for pump intensities below the barrier suppression intensity for singly charged Mn ions. However, by using higher prepulse and main pulse intensities, the harmonic cutoff was extended to the 101st order, with an appearance of second plateau for harmonics higher than the 31st order. In this case, the low-order harmonics decreased in intensity, or completely disappeared, and the spectrum for wavelengths longer than $27.6\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{nm}$ was dominated by plasma line emission. The origin of the harmonics appearing at this short wavelength plateau is attributed to the interaction of the intense main pump laser field with doubly charged manganese ions.

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 score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations86
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207