MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408184738 · doi:10.1103/physreva.111.032805

One- and two-center effects in single ionization in high-energy collisions of protons and hydrogen molecules

2025· article· en· W4408184738 on OpenAlexafffund
L. Gulyás, Sándor Egri, Tom Kirchner

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHungarian Scientific Research Fund
KeywordsIonizationAtomic physicsHydrogenMoleculeHydrogen moleculeCenter (category theory)PhysicsHigh energyNuclear physicsChemistryIonCrystallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doubly differential and total cross sections for single ionization in ${\mathrm{H}}^{+}\ensuremath{-}{\mathrm{H}}_{2}$ collisions are evaluated in the continuum distorted wave with eikonal initial state model. One- and two-center models are used to represent the target molecule. In the two-center model, the initial orbitals are represented by Hartree-Fock (HF) or density functional methods, while the continuum wave function of the ejected electron is determined on the spherically averaged model potential derived from the ground-state configuration. In the one-center description of the ${\mathrm{H}}_{2}$ molecule, both the initial and final orbitals are represented on the same potential. Cross sections evaluated with the HF description of the target are generally in good agreement with both experimental data and available theoretical calculations. Models describing the motion of the ejected electron in a potential field derived from a two-center description of the molecule underestimate the electron yield at backward emission angles. The inadequacy of these applications is related to the scattering of the electron by the target nucleus, which is more realistically considered in a calculation based on a one-center description of the molecule.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207