MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Elastic Recoil Detection Analysis

2008· other· en· W3022898861 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Trocellier, Timo Sajavaara

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIon-surface interactions and analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElastic recoil detectionVan de Graaff generatorNuclear reaction analysisIon beam analysisRutherford backscattering spectrometryNuclear reactionRecoilTandem acceleratorIon beamAccelerator mass spectrometryIonCyclotronElastic scatteringSpectroscopyHydrogenIrradiationAtomic physicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Beam (structure)Materials scienceMass spectrometryNuclear physicsChemistryPhysicsScatteringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 1976, a Canadian group described in detail for the first time a new ion beam analytical method based on the elastic recoil of target nuclei collided with high‐energy heavy incident ions. In this case, 25–40‐MeV 35 Cl impinged on a multilayer C or Cu (backing)/LiF or LiOH/Cu (30–150 nm)/LiF or LiOH and H, Li, O, and F recoiled atoms were detected. These exemplified the main characteristics of elastic recoil detection analysis (ERDA): its sensitivity to depth distribution and its ability to detect light elements in heavy substrates. In 1979, the use of megaelectronvolt energy 4 He beams permitted the use of ERDA to be extended to depth profiling of hydrogen isotopes in the near‐surface region of solids. ERDA has rapidly been revealed to be an excellent alternative to resonant nuclear reaction spectrometry ( see Nuclear Reaction Analysis ) for hydrogen determination in solids. Despite its less advantageous performance with respect to its lower depth resolution, lower analyzable depth, comparable sensitivity, and more restricting irradiation and detection geometry, some ERDA features have made its development in ion beam analysis (IBA) laboratories worldwide easier; these are simultaneous access to 1 H and 2 H depth distributions, access to single‐ended Van de Graaff accelerators compared with tandem accelerators or cyclotrons, and the ability to be combined with Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS) ( see Rutherford Backscattering Spectroscopy ). The development of detection devices and the analytical capabilities offered by high‐energy heavy‐ion‐induced ERDA in material sciences for profiling light, medium, and high mass number elements give this method a wide area in which to progress. The main advantage of heavy‐ion ERDA and quite unique feature among analysis techniques is the fact that all sample elements can be depth profiled in one measurement by single detector telescope. By means of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, the interpretation and reliability of the results have increased greatly over the last few years.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncyclopedia of Analytical ChemistrySame topicIon-surface interactions and analysisFrench-language works237,207