Role of projectile electrons for target-recoil-charge-state production in intermediate-energy B<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mrow/><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math>-Ne collisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We apply an independent electron model to study $q$-fold target-charge-state production in 25--600 keV/nucleon B${}^{2+}$-Ne collisions for which experimental and theoretical results were published recently [W. Wolff et al., Phys. Rev. A 84, 042704 (2011)]. The model treats projectile and target electrons using a common potential and makes use of a single-determinant wave function for the combined system. The calculated total cross sections for positive recoil ion production as well as for Ne${}^{q+}$ production ($q=1,...,4$) determined in coincidence with an unchanged projectile charge state agree well with experiment where available, i.e., in the 30--400 keV/nucleon energy range. At energies below 200 keV/nucleon the projectile electrons are shown to play a crucial role in reproducing the experimental data for $q=1,...,4$. For the $q\ensuremath{\ge}2$ channels the inclusion of projectile electron contributions is needed even at energies above 200 keV/nucleon in order to reproduce the experimental data. As expected, the predictions for the $q=5$ recoil charge state overestimate the experimental data due to a failure of the independent electron model for this extreme channel.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".