High resolution laser induced fluorescence spectroscopy of the [18.8]Φi3−XΦi3 (0,0) band of cobalt monofluoride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fine and hyperfine interaction parameters in the [18.8] (3)Phi (upsilon=0) and X (3)Phi (upsilon=0) states of cobalt monofluoride, CoF, have been determined from an analysis of high-resolution laser induced fluorescence spectra of the [18.8] (3)Phi(3)-X (3)Phi(3) and [18.8] (3)Phi(4)-X (3)Phi(4) band systems. The previously reported pure rotational transitions of the X (3)Phi(4)(upsilon=0) state [T. Okabayashi and M. Tanimoto, J. Mol. Spectrosc. 221, 149 (2003)] were included in the data set. The hyperfine parameters for (59)Co (I=72) and (19)F (I=12) have been interpreted using atomic data together with a proposed molecular orbital description for the [18.8](3)Phi(i) and X (3)Phi(i) states. A comparison of the hyperfine parameters in the X (3)Phi state of cobalt monohydride, CoH, with those of the X (3)Phi state of CoF reveals that the bonding in the two molecules is significantly different. It is shown that, in a situation where the Omega substates of a multiplet degenerate electronic state are analyzed separately, the Fermi contact parameter b can be determined with fair accuracy from the apparent centrifugal distortion of the hyperfine structure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".