MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055842660 · doi:10.1119/1.3553018

Five ways to the nonresonant dynamic Stark effect

2011· article· en· W2055842660 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaSteacie Institute for Molecular Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStark effectPhysicsAtomic physicsBirefringenceLaserElectric fieldOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dynamic Stark effect is the quasistatic shift in energy levels due to the application of optical fields. The effect is in many ways similar to the static Stark effect. However, the dynamic Stark effect can be applied on rapid time scales and with high energies, comparable to those of atoms and molecules themselves. The dynamic Stark effect due to nonresonant laser fields is used in a myriad of contemporary experiments to hold and align molecules, to shape potential energy surfaces, and to make rapid transient birefringence. Five approaches of increasing sophistication are used to describe the dynamic Stark effect. One application, molecular alignment, is summarized and a comparison is made between the dynamic Stark effect and Stokes light generation in a Raman scattering process.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · 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