MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146692741 · doi:10.1139/p09-096

Gain enhancement in two-stream electromagnetically pumped free electron laser with ion-channel guiding

2010· article· en· W2146692741 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Saviz, H. Mehdian

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWigglerPhysicsAtomic physicsElectronIonLaserFree electron modelFree-electron laserGainElectromagnetic radiationOpticsComputational physicsActive laser mediumCathode rayQuantum mechanicsLaser power scaling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theory of two-stream electromagnetic wave-wiggler free-electron lasers (TSEMWFEL) with an ion-channel guiding is proposed and investigated. An analysis of the two-stream steady-state electrons trajectories is obtained by solving the equation of motion in the electromagnetic wave wiggler and ion-channel guiding. The electron trajectories and the small signal gain are derived. Numerical calculations show that there are seven group trajectories rather than the two groups reported for conventional free-electron lasers. The characteristics of the linear-gain and the normalized maximum gain are studied numerically. It was also shown that the normalized gain of groups I and II is decreased and for groups (IV–VII) are increasing by growing [Formula: see text]. Furthermore, it was found that the two-stream with ion-channel field enhances the maximum gain in comparison with that for single beam.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersFrench-language works237,207