MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884550559 · doi:10.1088/1361-6455/aad49c

Self-channelled high harmonic generation of water window soft x-rays

2018· article· en· W2884550559 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Cardin, B E Schimdt, Nicolas Thiré, Samuel Beaulieu, Vincent Wanie, M. Negro, C. Vozzi, V. Toşa, François Légaré

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsPhysicsHigh harmonic generationIonizationOpticsWater windowExtreme ultravioletPhoton energyPhotonLaserAtomic physicsChannellingIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Owing to the increasing significance of high harmonic generation (HHG) as a tabletop coherent x-ray source and the coming of age of intense infrared (IR) lasers, the development of high brightness soft x-ray beamlines is gaining a lot of attention. We discuss the self-guided propagation of high energy IR pulses around 1.8 μ m centre wavelength being loosely focused into a long, high-pressure gas cell. A bright x-ray beam with photon energies extending up to the oxygen K-edge at 543 eV is achieved with a flux of 2.9 × 10 3 photons/shot/1% bandwidth around the carbon K-edge (280 eV). We provide experimental and numerical evidence of an ionization steady state condition in the generation medium causing self-channelling and intensity clamping of the driving field. While the later limits the HHG cut-off energy for a given driving field wavelength, self-channelling increases the HHG flux through a longer, phase-matched, interaction length and provides a well-collimated HHG beam covering more than three octaves from <50 to 550 eV.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations44
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical PhysicsSame topicLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207