THE FORMULAS FOR THE SECONDARY ELECTRON YIELD AT HIGH INCIDENT ELECTRON ENERGY FROM GOLD AND ALUMINUM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the main physical processes of secondary electron emission from metals, the relation that the product of the number of secondary electron released per primary electron at high incident electron energy and the (n-1)th power of incident energy of primary electron is equal to constant C was deduced, where n is the energy exponent, based on the relation between the number of secondary electron released per primary electron at high incident electron energy and secondary electron yield. The relation that the product of the secondary electron yield at high incident electron energy and the (n-1)th power of incident energy of primary electron is equal to constant D was deduced. The constant D and the energy exponent n of the primary electron in the energy range 10 to 100 keV hitting on gold and aluminum are computed with the ESTAR program and experimental results in scanning electron microscope (SEM), respectively, therefore, the formulas for the incident energy dependence of secondary electron yield in the energy range 10 to 100 keV from gold and aluminum were deduced. The formulas were proved to be true by experimental results in SEM. The results were discussed and a conclusion was drawn. The formulas from gold and aluminum were successfully deduced.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".