MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153823144 · doi:10.1063/1.1809571

Two-photon state selection and angular momentum polarization probed by velocity map imaging: Application to H atom photofragment angular distributions from the photodissociation of two-photon state selected HCl and HBr

2004· article· en· W2153823144 on OpenAlexaff
Sergei Manzhos, Constantin Romanescu, Hans‐Peter Loock, Jonathan G. Underwood

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtomic physicsPhysicsPhotonAngular momentumTotal angular momentum quantum numberExcitationPolarization (electrochemistry)Angular momentum couplingDissociation (chemistry)Photon polarizationAngular momentum of lightChemistryOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A formalism for calculating the angular momentum polarization of an atom or a molecule following two-photon excitation of a J-selected state is presented. This formalism is used to interpret the H atom photofragment angular distributions from single-photon dissociation of two-photon rovibronically state selected HCl and HBr prepared via a Q-branch transition. By comparison of the angular distributions measured using the velocity map imaging technique with the theoretical model it is shown that single-photon dissociation of two-photon prepared states can be used for pathway identification, allowing for the identification of the virtual state symmetry in the two-photon absorption and/or the symmetry of the dissociative state. It is also shown that under conditions of excitation with circularly polarized light, or for excitation via non-Q-branch transitions with linearly polarized light the angular momentum polarization is independent of the dynamics of the two-photon transition and analytically computable.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207