MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162902188 · doi:10.1139/v03-011

Hot model of muonium formation in liquids

2003· article· en· W2162902188 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David C. Walker, S. Karolczak, Hugh A. Gillis, Gerald B. Porter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuon and positron interactions and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuoniumChemistryDiamagnetismMicrosecondMuonChemical physicsPhotochemistryHydrogenOrganic chemistryMagnetic fieldNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanism of formation of muonium atoms from positive muons was studied here through measurements of the yield of diamagnetic muon states in dipolar aprotic solvents and for scavenger solutions in hexane and methanol. The results are compared with published data on common solvents covering a full range of the physicochemical properties of liquids that affect an ionic formation mechanism, namely their static dielectric constants, electron mobilities, and radiolysis yields of electrons. It is concluded that muonium is not formed by a thermal charge-neutralization reaction in these chemically-active media, though that mechanism does contribute to muonium formation in inert media like liquefied noble gases. It is clear that muonium materializes on a much shorter timescale than the recently proposed "delayed" mechanism (microseconds) and the earlier "spur" model (nanoseconds). In contrast, the data referring to all these liquids are consistent with the intra-track "hot" model. This is the only Mu-formation model proposed so far in which the immediate precursors of Mu (Mu (hot) ) are neither scavengable nor ionic.Key words: muonium atoms, formation mechanism, hot model, spur model, delayed-muonium-formation model, diamagnetic yields.

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 score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicMuon and positron interactions and applicationsFrench-language works237,207