Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of higher energy X-ray sources for photoelectron spectroscopy is receiving considerable attention due to the increased availability of laboratory-based instrumentation and an improved insight into the structures and interfacial properties of technological materials. In traditional X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy the design of the instrument often compensates for anisotropy in photoelectron emission through consideration of the angles between the X-ray source and the electron analyser. X-ray polarisation and non-dipole effects in photoemission are usually assumed to be negligible. However, for high energy XPS (HAXPES) both may be significant. Polarisation at synchrotron sources is an important consideration and non-dipole effects are generally more significant at higher photon energies. In this article we demonstrate that, for certain polarisations, ‘magic angle’ geometries exist that minimise the effects of both dipole and non-dipole contributions in photoemission. However, it is not possible to find such geometries for unpolarised X-rays; achieving a ‘magic angle’ geometry in HAXPES requires the X-rays to have a degree of linear polarisation of 1/3 or greater.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".