Modeling, analysis, and code/data validation of DIII-D tokamak divertor experiments on ELM and non-ELM plasma tungsten sputtering erosion
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We analyzed recent DIII-D tokamak tungsten divertor probe experiments using advanced, coupled, sputter erosion/redeposition, plasma, and surface response code packages. Modeling is done for ELMing H-mode, and L-mode plasmas, impinging on various size tungsten deposits on Divertor Material Evaluation System (DiMES) carbon probes. The simulations compute 3D, full kinetic, sub-gyromotion, impurity sputtering and transport, including changes in tungsten surface composition and response due to mixed deuterium and carbon ions irradiation. Per our analysis, ELM (edge localized mode) plasma sputtering in DIII-D mostly involves free-streaming high energy (∼500–1000 eV) D + and C +6 ions, with high near-surface plasma density. L-Mode sputtering is due to impurity sputtering (C, W) only, with lower density. All cases show complete redeposition of tungsten on the divertor, with significant redeposition on the tungsten spots themselves, and low self-sputtering. Comparison of ELM plasma gross tungsten erosion simulation results with in-situ spectroscopic data is good, as are code/data comparisons of net erosion using post-exposure Rutherford backscattering (RBS) data for the L-mode probes. The analysis, extrapolated to a full tungsten divertor, implies low net erosion and negligible plasma contamination from sputtering. These results support the use of high-Z plasma facing surfaces in ITER and beyond.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it