MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Observation of Interference between Two Distinct Autoionizing States in Dissociative Photoionization of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">H</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math>

2012· article· en· W2323030028 on OpenAlexaff
T J Reddish, Arathi Padmanabhan, M. A. MacDonald, Lucia Zuin, J. Fernández, Alicia Palacios, Fernando Martı́n

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)University of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPhotoionizationAtomic physicsExcited stateElectronAmplitudePhoton energyAsymmetryIonPhotonIonizationQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dissociative photoionization (DPI) of randomly oriented H(2) molecules has been studied using linearly polarized synchrotron radiation at selected photon energies of 31, 33, and 35 eV. Large amplitude oscillations in the photoelectron asymmetry parameter β, as a function of electron energy, have been observed. The phase of these β oscillations are in excellent agreement with the results of recent close coupling calculations [Fernández and Martín, New J. Phys. 11, 043020 (2009)]. We show that the oscillations are the signature of interferences between the 1Q(1) (1)Σ(u)(+) and 1Q(2) (1)Π(u) doubly excited states decaying at different internuclear distances. The oscillations thus provide information about the classical paths followed by the nuclei. The presence of such oscillations is predicted to be a general phenomenon in DPI.

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: 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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207