Spectroscopic analysis and modeling of tungsten EBIT and Z-pinch plasma experiments<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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spectral tungsten data taken on an electron beam ion trap (EBIT) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are analyzed between 3 and 8 Å for electron beam energies between 2.5 and 4.1 keV. The advantage of using charge state balancing with the experimental EBIT spectra for the identification of lines is employed and discussed. Theoretical Hebrew University Lawrence Livermore Atomic Code (HULLAC) modeling is then benchmarked against the experimental EBIT results. In particular, Co-, Ni-, Zn-, Cu-, Ga-, and Ge-like transitions were modeled independently using HULLAC to aid in charge state balancing. This model is then compared with Z-pinch plasma data collected on Zebra, the 1.6 MA pulse power generator located in the Nevada Terawatt Facility at the University of Nevada, Reno. The model is used to calculate charge balance and average ionization levels of these experimental plasma results, with particular focus on planar tungsten arrays.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".