MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103517395 · doi:10.1017/s0263034602202074

A review of X-ray laser development at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

2002· review· en· W2103517395 on OpenAlexfundno aff
G. J. Tallents, Y. Abou‐Ali, Matthew Edwards, R. E. King, G. J. Pert, S. J. Pestehe, F. Strati, C. L. S. Lewis, R. Keenan, Simon Topping, A. Klisnick, Olivier Guilbaud, D. Ros, R. J. Clarke, M. Notley, D. Neely

Bibliographic record

VenueLaser and Particle Beams · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of OxfordQueen's University BelfastUniversity of Essex
KeywordsLasing thresholdLaserPicosecondOpticsPulse (music)WavelengthX-ray laserMaterials sciencePulse durationSaturation (graph theory)PhysicsLaser power scaling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent experiments undertaken at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory to produce X-ray lasing over the 5–30 nm wavelength range are reviewed. The efficiency of lasing is optimized when the main pumping pulse interacts with a preformed plasma. Experiments using double 75-ps pulses and picosecond pulses superimposed on 300-ps background pulses are described. The use of travelling wave pumping with the approximately picosecond pulse experiments is necessary as the gain duration becomes comparable to the time for the X-ray laser pulse to propagate along the target length. Results from a model taking account of laser saturation and deviations from the speed of light c of the travelling wave and X-ray laser group velocity are presented. We show that X-ray laser pulses as short as 2–3 ps can be produced with optical pumping pulses of ≈1-ps.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaser and Particle BeamsSame topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207