MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094225302 · doi:10.1063/1.4904790

Calculation of Thomson scattering spectral fits for interpenetrating flows

2014· article· en· W2094225302 on OpenAlexaff
G. F. Swadling, S. V. Lebedev, A. J. Harvey-Thompson, W. Rozmus, G. Burdiak, L. Suttle, S. Patankar, R. A. Smith, M. Bennett, G. N. Hall, F. Suzuki-Vidal, Jianhua Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSandia National LaboratoriesEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsScatteringDeflection (physics)Computational physicsSpectral linePhysicsTungstenOpticsMagnetic fieldThomson scatteringAblationMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collective mode optical Thomson scattering has been used to investigate the interactions of radially convergent ablation flows in Tungsten wire arrays. These experiments were carried out at the Magpie pulsed power facility at Imperial College, London. Analysis of the scattered spectra has provided direct evidence of ablation stream interpenetration on the array axis, and has also revealed a previously unobserved axial deflection of the ablation streams towards the anode as they approach the axis. It is has been suggested that this deflection is caused by the presence of a static magnetic field, advected with the ablation streams, stagnated and accrued around the axis. Analysis of the Thomson scattering spectra involved the calculation and fitting of the multi-component, non-relativistic, Maxwellian spectral density function S (k, ω). The method used to calculate the fits of the data are discussed in detail.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicLaser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207