MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280635184 · doi:10.1063/5.0086068

Production of high fluence laser beams using ion wave plasma optics

2022· article· en· W4280635184 on OpenAlexaff
R. K. Kirkwood, Patrick Poole, D. H. Kalantar, T. Chapman, S. C. Wilks, Matthew R. Edwards, D. Turnbull, P. Michel, L. Divol, N. J. Fisch, P. A. Norreys, W. Rozmus, J. D. Bude, B. E. Blue, K. B. Fournier, B. M. Van Wonterghem, A. J. Mackinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBrillouin scatteringPlasmaOpticsLaserThomson scatteringRaman scatteringInertial confinement fusionWaves in plasmasScatteringFluencePhysicsMaterials scienceAtomic physicsOptoelectronicsRaman spectroscopyNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical components for laser beams with high peak and averaged powers are being developed worldwide using stimulated plasma scattering that occurs when plasmas interact with intense, coherent light. After decades of pursuit of pulse compressors, mirrors, and other plasma based components that can be created by stimulated scattering from electron density perturbations forming on ultra-short time scales (e.g., via Stimulated Raman Scattering), more recent work has produced optical components on longer time scales allowing ion motion as well [via Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS)]. In the most recent work, ion wave plasma optics have had success in producing pulses of focusable coherent light with high energy and fluence by operating on ns time scales and now promise to enable numerous applications. Experiments have further shown that in some parameter regimes, even simple plasma response models can describe the output of such optics with sufficient accuracy that they can be used as engineering tools to design plasma optics for future applications, as is already being done to control power deposition in fusion targets. In addition, the development of more sophisticated models promises to enable still higher performance from SBS driven plasma optical components under a wider range of conditions. The present status and most promising directions for future development of ion wave plasma optic techniques are discussed here.

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 score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics LettersSame topicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasmaFrench-language works237,207