Refined potential-energy surfaces for the <sup>2</sup><i>A</i>" and à <sup>2</sup>A' electronic states of the HO<sub>2</sub> molecule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a previous paper (G. Osmann et al. J. Mol. Spectrosc. 197, 262 (1999)) we calculated ab initio the potential-energy surfaces of the ground [Formula: see text]2A" and excited Ã2A' electronic states of the HO2 molecule; these two states correlate with a 2Π state at linearity and participate in a Renner effect interaction. In that paper, we also calculated the electric- and magnetic-dipole moment and transition-moment surfaces, and the spin-orbit coupling constant; we then simulated the à ® [Formula: see text] emission band system including both electric-dipole and magnetic-dipole transitions. We now calculate more points on the surfaces to cover a wider range of bending geometries, and then refine the surfaces by fitting to rovibronic term values for both electronic states simultaneously. In the fitting we include levels having J values up to 9/2 and term values up to about 8000 cm1. In our calculation of the energy levels we allow for the Renner effect and spin-orbit coupling by using our variational computer program RENNER. A good fitting to the data is obtained and as a result we obtain an accurate representation of these two potential surfaces over an energy range of more than 1 eV. We tabulate the vibronic energies up to 1 eV for both HO2 and DO2. We can explain the origin of a perturbation observed in the F1 spin component levels of the Ã(0, 0, 0) vibronic state for J values around 51/2; this is caused by a spin-orbit interaction satisfying Δ N = ± 1 with the F2 spin component levels of the [Formula: see text](1,1,2) vibronic state. Using the new rovibronic energies and wave functions, with our ab initio electric dipole moment and transition moment surfaces, we calculate Stark coefficients and compare them with experiment for some ground vibronic state levels. PACS Nos.: 31.20D, 31.50, 33.10, 33.20E, 35.20D, 35.20J
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".