MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297998679 · doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.1015603

Temporal dusty plasma afterglow: A review

2022· review· en· W4297998679 on OpenAlexafffund
Lénaïc Couëdel

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDust and Plasma Wave Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAfterglowAmbipolar diffusionPlasmaAtomic physicsDusty plasmaIonCharged particleDiffusionElectronParticle (ecology)Electric fieldPhysicsAstrophysicsGamma-ray burst

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In complex plasmas, dust particles are charged through their interactions with the electrons and ions of the surrounding plasma. In low-temperature laboratory plasmas, dust particles most commonly acquire a negative charge. In particular, in a laboratory glow-discharge plasma, the typical charge for a micrometer-size grain generally attains a few thousands of electronic charges. Under stable discharge conditions, this large negative charge is relatively well-characterized. However, for unsteady discharge conditions, the charge can differ and even fluctuate. In particular, when the power source of the discharge is turned off, the charged species of the plasma diffuse away and recombine into neutral species: this is a temporal afterglow. When dust particles are present inside a temporal plasma afterglow, the diffusion of charged species and the plasma decay dynamics are affected. Moreover, the dust particle charges also evolve during the afterglow period. In the late afterglow, dust particles are known to keep residual charges. The value of these residual charges strongly depends on the ambipolar-to-free diffusion transition. In addition, the presence of a constant electric field, causing ions to drift through the neutral gas, has a strong influence on the final dust particle residual charges, eventually leading to large positive residual charges. In this review article, the dynamics of temporal complex plasma afterglow are discussed. Experimental and theoretical results are presented. The basics of temporal afterglow modeling are also given.

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)0.000
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysicsSame topicDust and Plasma Wave PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207