MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088077281 · doi:10.1103/physreva.64.062713

Analysis of physical observables and approximate distribution functions for drifting linear ions

2001· article· en· W2088077281 on OpenAlexafffund
Rafał Baranowski, Mark Thachuk

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrostatics and Colloid Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsObservableBasis (linear algebra)Distribution functionPerpendicularDistribution (mathematics)Basis functionConvergence (economics)Boltzmann equationStatistical physicsAngular momentumIonFunction (biology)Momentum (technical analysis)Order (exchange)Boltzmann constantClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accuracy of two recently proposed approximate distribution functions for drifting linear ions [R. Baranowski and M. Thachuk, Phys. Rev. A 63, 032503 (2001) is tested at a number of levels of microscopic detail. Through formal mathematical manipulations, low-order expressions are derived for a number of physical observables, including the angular momentum dependence of the drift velocity, and parallel and perpendicular translational temperatures, as well as the dependence of the quadrupolar alignment parameter on the parallel and perpendicular velocity components. Finally, comparisons are made between the approximate forms and basis set expansions of the distribution function utilized in formal solutions of the Boltzmann equation, with the goal of suggesting general features of these basis sets that might help improve convergence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicElectrostatics and Colloid InteractionsFrench-language works237,207