MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289071721 · doi:10.6122/cjp.52.329

Semi-classical Methods in Non-Sequential Double Ionization

2014· article· en· W2289071721 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Allan S. Johnson, A. Staudte, D. M. Villeneuve

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDouble ionizationIonizationPhysicsElectronQuantum tunnellingQuantumKinetic energyAtomic physicsAtom (system on chip)Position (finance)Field (mathematics)Quantum mechanicsIonComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-sequential double ionization of an atom in an intense lasereld is a prototypical problem in multi-body strong eld interactions. To examine non-sequential double ionization, an often used approach is the semi-classical method, by which initial conditions are set according to quantum expressions and the ensuing dynamics modelled classically. Here we present a comparative study of quantum and semi-classical methods in the single active electron approximation. We show that semi-classical methods over-estimate the kinetic energy of rescattered electrons by up to 150%. We further show that the return time of the recolliding electrons deviates between quantum and semi-classical methods at low intensities, and that the deviation is attributable to the choice of the initial tunnelling position.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207