MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980940512 · doi:10.1103/physreva.63.022509

Shannon entropies and logarithmic mean excitation energies from cusp- and asymptotic-constrained model densities

2001· article· en· W1980940512 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robin P. Sagar, Juan Carlos Ramírez Rodríguez, Rodolfo O. Esquivel, Minhhuy Hô, Vedene H. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsPhysicsJoint quantum entropyEntropy (arrow of time)Statistical physicsConfiguration entropyLogarithmMaximum entropy probability distributionPosition and momentum spaceMaximum entropy thermodynamicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisPrinciple of maximum entropyStatisticsMathematicsQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model correctly describing the asymptotic behavior of the charge density is used to derive an expression for the Shannon entropy in terms of the ionization potential of the system. A strong similarity is observed between this model entropy and the entropy obtained from correlated wave functions providing evidence that it is the asymptotic regions that are responsible for the behavior of the entropy. We also show via a model entropy that the behavior of the momentum space Shannon entropy is due to a correct description of the cusp behavior at the nucleus. The changes in the position and momentum space entropies as a function of a parameter are shown to be linearly related for these models. The expression for the entropy, derived from a density model that obeys the asymptotic behavior, is shown to be almost identical in nature to the general expression for entropy emanating in the stopping power formalism.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

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

Citations29
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207