MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1960307975 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2012-0345

The impact theory of spectral line shapes: a paradigm shift

2013· article· en· W1960307975 on OpenAlexaffvenue
A. D. May, W.-K. Liu, Frederick R. W. McCourt, R. Ciuryło, Jamie Sanchez-Fortún Stoker, Д. А. Шапиро, Richard Wehr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Laser Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsLine (geometry)Spectral lineSpectral line shapeComputational physicsSpectral shape analysisScatteringComputationStatistical physicsOpticsQuantum mechanicsGeometryAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An overview of the binary collision impact theory of spectral line shapes has been given to provide a unified statistical mechanical approach to line-shape theory, laser theory, nonlinear optics, and transport phenomena in dilute gases. The computation of spectral line profiles corresponding to those obtained from ultra-high-resolution spectral line-shape measurements requires numerical ab initio calculation of scattering amplitudes directly from the underlying dynamics of collisions between radiatively active molecules and their perturbers. The Wigner distribution function–density matrix is utilized to describe the kinetic theory of spectral line shapes and to discuss the various collisional processes that contribute to the kernel of kinetic equations. The influence of features of the potential energy surface on spectral parameters is also discussed, and the importance of comparing experimental line profiles directly with numerically computed line shapes obtained from reliable interaction potentials is emphasized. This contrasts sharply with the universal practice of comparing experimental line widths and shifts using some average or approximate theoretical scattering cross-sections and it contrasts sharply with fitting experimental profiles to some convenient analytical line-shape model; hence the phrase “a paradigm shift” in the title of this work.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.010
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Laser ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207