MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132343903

Effect of laser pulse duration on laser-induced incandescence of soot

2012· other· en· W7132343903 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fengshan Liu, Gregory J. Smallwood

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2012
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncandescenceLaserNanosecondSootPulse durationPulse (music)PicosecondWavelength
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phenomenon of laser-induced incandescence (LII) has been utilized to develop versatile diagnostic techniques for measurements of combustion-generated soot concentration and primary particle size in many combustion applications. Many aspects in the implementation of LII have been investigated, such as the excitation laser wavelength and spatial profile, signal detection timing (prompt or delayed) and temporal width, and signal detection wavelengths. One potentially important parameter in LII practice that has received little attention in the LII community is the laser pulse duration. This is perhaps due to the fact that almost all the LII experiments conducted in the last two decades employed Q-switched, flashlamp pumped Nd:YAG lasers as the light source, which all provide a similar pulse duration in a narrow range between 5 and 10 ns FWHM. Few LII experiments were conducted using a much long laser pulse (microsecond) or much a shorter one (picoseconds). Picosecond laser pulses were shown theoretically to provide advantages over nanosecond ones in the determination of primary particle size distribution using lowfluence LII in flames at elevated pressures.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→