MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313480832 · doi:10.1002/ntls.20220063

Review of “Molecules in superfluid helium nanodroplets: Spectroscopy, structure, and dynamics,” edited by Alkwin Slenczka and Jan Peter Toennies, Volume 145, Topics in Applied Physics, Springer Publishing Co., New York, 2022

2023· article· en· W4313480832 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David W. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolume (thermodynamics)Superfluid helium-4PublishingEngineering physicsPhysicsSuperfluidityPolitical scienceCondensed matter physicsThermodynamicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A brief preface gives the historical background of the field.Cryogenic matrices as molecular sample holders were first introduced in the 1950s by George Pimentel, Herbert Broida, and coworkers for stabilizing reactive species in low-temperature, nonreactive solids and studying them using a variety of techniques, including optical and infrared spectroscopy.In 1977, the seeded beam method was introduced by Lennard Wharton, Donald Levy, and Richard Smalley as an alternative to matrix isolation.In this method, gas phase molecules were cooled to low temperatures by expanding them in an excess of inert gas into a vacuum, and then probed by optical methods, usually with lasers.Then, over a period of several years, studies of helium expansions by mass spectrometry revealed the presence of large clusters of He atoms, the possibility that these clusters might be doped with other species, and the discovery that single molecules could be inserted into droplets where they were free to rotate.A dramatic early discovery was the finding in 1992 by Fröchtenicht and Vilesov in

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.007

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural SciencesSame topicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamicsFrench-language works237,207