MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289029572 · doi:10.1088/0953-4075/49/6/065201

Photoionization of tungsten ions: experiment and theory for ${{\rm{W}}}^{2+}$ and ${{\rm{W}}}^{3+}$

2016· article· en· W2289029572 on OpenAlexfundno aff
B M McLaughlin, C P Ballance, S. Schippers, J Hellhund, A. L. D. Kilcoyne, R. A. Phaneuf, A. Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratorySmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryQueen's UniversityDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftOffice of ScienceUniversität StuttgartQueen's University BelfastAuburn UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationInstitute for Theoretical Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, Harvard UniversityU.S. Department of EnergyBasic Energy SciencesSmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIonAtomic physicsTungstenPhotoionizationPhoton energyPhysicsIonizationRange (aeronautics)PhotonChemistryMaterials scienceOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Experimental and theoretical results are reported for single-photon single ionization of and W 3+ tungsten ions. Experiments were performed at the photon–ion merged-beam setup of the Advanced Light Source in Berkeley. Absolute cross sections and detailed energy scans were measured over an energy range 20–90 eV at a bandwidth of 100 meV. Broad peak features with widths typically around 5 eV have been observed with almost no narrow resonances present in the investigated energy range. Theoretical results were obtained from a Dirac–Coulomb R -matrix approach. The calculations were carried out for the lowest-energy terms of the investigated tungsten ions with levels for and for . Assuming a statistically weighted distribution of ions in the initial ground-term levels there is good agreement of theory and experiment for ions. However, for ions at higher energies there is a factor of approximately two difference between experimental and theoretical cross sections.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical PhysicsSame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207