MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005701016 · doi:10.1139/v04-014

Methods for calculating vibrational energy levels

2004· article· en· W2005701016 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tucker Carrington

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanczos resamplingLanczos algorithmHamiltonian (control theory)ChemistryBasis setBasis (linear algebra)Basis functionHamiltonian matrixMatrix (chemical analysis)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsComputational chemistryStatistical physicsQuantum mechanicsPhysicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsSymmetric matrixGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews new methods for computing vibrational energy levels of small polyatomic molecules. The principal impediment to the calculation of energy levels is the size of the required basis set. If one uses a product basis the Hamiltonian matrix for a four-atom molecule is too large to store in core memory. We discuss iterative methods that enable one to use a product basis to compute energy levels (and spectra) without storing a Hamiltonian matrix. Despite the advantages of iterative methods it is not possible, using product basis functions, to calculate vibrational spectra of molecules with more than four atoms. A very recent method combining contracted basis functions and the Lanczos algorithm with which vibrational energy levels of methane have been computed is described. New ideas, based on exploiting preconditioning, for reducing the number of matrix-vector products required to converge energy levels of interest are also summarized.Key words: vibrational energy levels, kinetic energy operators, Lanczos algorithm, contracted basis functions, preconditioning.

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207