MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769835189 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2017-0120

Physical proprieties of DC glow discharges in a neon–argon gas mixture

2017· article· en· W2769835189 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdelaziz Bouchikhi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeonArgonAtomic physicsPhysicsMetastabilityIonGlow dischargeAtom (system on chip)Number densityElectron densityTorrElectric fieldElectronPlasmaThermodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports a detailed study of 90% Ne – 10% Ar gas mixture DC glow discharge at low pressure, wherein 15 chemical reactions are considered. The second-order fluid model is used. The parameters of particle transport and their rate coefficients strictly depend on mean electron energy. In the framework of the local electric field approximation, we have developed an analytical expression of the drift velocity of positive argon ions in a neon gas [Formula: see text], which is in good agreement with the experimental results, and serves to give best results than the results obtained using [Formula: see text] that exist in the literature. The results show that the argon ion density is more important than the neon ion density despite the presence of more constant background neon gas density in the mixture. The current density reaches 0.1729 mA/cm 2 for 250 V applied potential under 2 Torr pressure in a gas mixture. The spatio-temporal evolution of both electric and energetic characteristics, as well as their spatial distribution in the steady state, are shown and discussed. The maximum value of the neon metastable atom density is 4.54957 × 10 8 cm −3 , and for argon metastable atom density is 5.4689 × 10 8 cm −3 . The model is verified experimentally and theoretically in the particular case.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207