MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942074687 · doi:10.1088/1361-6595/ab1cac

Charging and heating processes of dust particles in an electron cyclotron resonance plasma

2019· article· en· W2942074687 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlasma Sources Science and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDust and Plasma Wave Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtomic physicsPlasmaElectronElectron cyclotron resonanceParticle (ecology)ArgonHeliumElectron temperatureMaterials sciencePhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Incandescent dust particles are observed with the naked eye in plasmas excited at the electron cyclotron resonance produced in pure acetylene. To investigate the heating mechanisms involved and their potential impact on the dust particle charge, as a first approach, a probe is used to measure the floating potential and to estimate the temperature reached by the material. Both highly depend on the position in the magnetic field and on the plasma conditions (pressure and gas, namely argon or helium). Numerical simulations based on the balance of the currents and of the heat fluxes on the probe emphasize a key role of primary electrons: they are responsible for the very negative floating potential as well as for the high probe temperature. Numerical simulations are also adapted to the case of a dust particle in a non-reactive plasma. However, even it can reach temperatures higher than 1600 K, the dust particle remains negatively charged.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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