MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080430312 · doi:10.1117/12.548744

Thermodynamics of absorbing solids during short-pulse laser ablation

2004· article· en· W2080430312 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Lorazo, Danny Pérez, Laurent J. Lewis, Michel Meunier

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsLaser ablationPicosecondLaserAblationSpallationMaterials scienceSupercritical fluidAtomic physicsFluenceContext (archaeology)Isochoric processSemiconductorThermodynamicsPhase diagramPhase (matter)OpticsPhysicsNeutronOptoelectronicsNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fundamental mechanisms of matter removal involved in the interaction of short laser pulses with absorbing solids have been investigated using molecular-dynamics/Monte~Carlo simulations. This is accomplished under the two following assumptions: (i) the elementary thermodynamic properties of targets (metals and semiconductors) are adequately described by empirical potentials; (ii) in the regime where ablation is thermal, the complete time evolution of the system can be followed in p-T-P space and the result mapped onto the equilibrium phase diagram of the material. We find remarkable similarities in the physical pathways to ablation in metals and semiconductors for pulse durations ranging from 200 fs to 400 ps: (i) under conditions of isochoric heating and rapid adiabatic cooling with femtosecond pulses, several mechanisms can simultaneously account for matter removal in the target: spallation, phase explosion, vaporization, and fragmentation; the latter is identified for the first time in the context of laser ablation. (ii) Under nonadiabatic cooling with picosecond pulses, ablation is driven by a "trivial" fragmentation process in the metallic, supercritical fluid; this suggests a pulse duration upper limit for phase explosion of ~ 10-11 s.

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 score0.008

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasmaFrench-language works237,207