MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508994082 · doi:10.1103/physreva.94.023825

<i>In situ</i>attosecond pulse characterization techniques to measure the electromagnetic phase

2016· article· en· W2508994082 on OpenAlexaff
M. Spanner, J. B. Bertrand, D. M. Villeneuve

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttosecondMeasure (data warehouse)Characterization (materials science)Phase (matter)Electromagnetic pulsePhysicsPulse (music)In situOpticsAtomic physicsUltrashort pulseLaserQuantum mechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of techniques have been developed to characterize the attosecond emission from high-order-harmonic sources. These techniques are broadly classified as ex situ, where the attosecond pulse train photoionizes a target gas in the presence of an infrared field, and in situ, where the measurement takes place in the medium in which the attosecond pulses are generated. It is accepted that ex situ techniques measure the characteristics of the electromagnetic field, including the phase of the recombination transition moment of the emitting atom or molecule, when the phase of the second medium is known. However, there is debate about whether in situ techniques measure the electromagnetic field, or only the characteristics of the recolliding electron before recombination occurs. We show numerically that in situ measurements are not sensitive to the recombination phase, when implemented in the perturbative regime as originally envisioned, and that they do not measure the electromagnetic phase of the emission.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207