MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385952303 · doi:10.4236/jamp.2023.118148

Determining the Charge-to-Mass Ratio of the Electron

2023· article· en· W4385952303 on OpenAlexaff
Joaquim Bocresion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Mathematics and Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicExperimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronAtomic physicsPhysicsHeliumFaraday cupSecondary electronsCathode rayBeam (structure)RADIUSNuclear physicsOpticsIon beam

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this lab was to determine an experimental value for the charge-to-mass ratio e/me of the electron. In order to do this, an assembly consisting of Helmholtz coils and a helium-filled fine beam tube containing an electron gun was used. Electrons were accelerated from rest by the electron gun at a voltage of 201.3 V kept constant across trials. When the accelerated electrons collided with the helium atoms in the fine beam tube, the helium atoms entered an excited state and released energy as light. Since the Helmholtz coils put the electrons into centripetal motion, this resulted in a circular beam of light, the radius of which was measured by taking a picture and using photo analysis. This procedure was used to test currents through the Helmholtz coils ranging from 1.3 A to 1.7 A in increments of 0.1 A. Using a linearization of these data, the experimental value for the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron was found to be 1.850 × 1011 C/kg, bounded between 1.440 × 1011 C/kg and 2.465 × 1011 C/kg. This range of values includes the accepted value of 1.759 × 1011 C/kg, and yields a percent error of 5.17%. The rather low percent error is a testament to the accuracy of this procedure. During this experiment, the orientation of the ambient magnetic field due to the Earth at the center of the apparatus was not considered. In the future, it would be worthwhile to repeat this procedure, taking care to position the Helmholtz coils in such a way to negate the effects of the Earth’s magnetic field on the centripetal motion of electrons.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Mathematics and PhysicsSame topicExperimental and Theoretical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207