MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193689989 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2013-0174

Electron impact total and ionization cross sections for Sr, Y, Ru, Pd, and Ag atoms

2013· article· en· W2193689989 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dhanoj Gupta, Rahla Naghma, Bobby Antony

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsIonizationAtomic physicsElectronCross section (physics)Wave functionRange (aeronautics)Electron ionizationScatteringEffective nuclear chargeAtomic numberIonization energyIonCharge (physics)Molar ionization energies of the elementsNuclear physicsQuantum mechanicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calculation of electron impact total and ionization cross sections for Sr, Y, Ru, Pd, and Ag atoms were performed using spherical complex optical potential and complex scattering potential-ionization contribution methods. The complex optical potential model is formulated from the target parameters and the atomic charge density. The spherical charge densities are in turn derived from the Roothaan–Hartree–Fock wavefunctions defining the atomic orbital of the target. In the present study cross sections are computed in the energy range from ionization threshold to 2000 eV. The results obtained are compared with other theories and measurements wherever available and were found to be quite consistent and uniform. In general, present data show an overall reasonable agreement with other results. Dependence of total cross sections on the number of target electrons and peak of ionization cross section on target parameters were also found to be consistent with previous observations.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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