MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167930398 · doi:10.1139/p11-029

Creation, destruction, and transfer of atomic multipole moments by electron scattering: relativistic treatment<sup>1</sup>This article is part of a Special Issue on the 10th International Colloquium on Atomic Spectra and Oscillator Strengths for Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas.

2011· article· en· W2167930398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G. Csanak, Christopher J. Fontes, D. P. Kilcrease, Dmitry V. Fursa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsScatteringInelastic scatteringElastic scatteringMultipole expansionScattering amplitudeScattering lengthMott scatteringAtomic physicsOptical theoremQuasielastic scatteringScattering theoryElectron scatteringAmplitudeMomentum transferQuantum mechanicsX-ray Raman scatteringSmall-angle neutron scatteringNeutron scattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have obtained expressions for the creation, destruction, and transfer of atomic multipole moments by electron scattering under relativistic conditions. More specifically, we have obtained separate expressions for different-level processes (inelastic scattering) and for same-level processes (elastic and inelastic scattering). The cross sections for different-level processes are expressed in terms of inelastic magnetic sublevel cross sections, except for the coherence transfer cross section, which is expressed in terms of an angular integral of a product of inelastic magnetic sublevel amplitudes. The same-level cross sections are expressed in terms of the imaginary part of the elastic forward scattering amplitude and in terms of elastic scattering magnetic sublevel cross sections, except for the coherence transfer cross section, which is expressed in terms of the (complex) forward elastic scattering amplitudes and an angular integral of a product of elastic scattering magnetic sublevel amplitudes. If the collisional model supports the optical theorem, then the same-level cross sections can be rewritten in such a form that they are broken up into two parts: an elastic scattering part and an inelastic scattering part. In carrying out this work, we have used the density matrix formalism of Fano and Blum in combination with the electron scattering formalism of Gell-Mann and Goldberger.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207