MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009922325 · doi:10.1139/p09-049

Large-scale CIV3 calculations of fine-structure energy levels and radiative rates in Al-like copper

2009· article· en· W2009922325 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Govind P. Gupta, A. Z. Msezane

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic Energy Sciences
KeywordsPhysicsRadiative transferAtomic physicsHamiltonian (control theory)Relativistic quantum chemistryExcitationConfiguration interactionGround stateWave functionDipoleExcited stateComputational physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have performed large-scale CIV3 calculations of excitation energies from the ground state for 97 fine-structure levels as well as of oscillator strengths and radiative decay rates for all electric-dipole-allowed and intercombination transitions among the fine-structure levels of the terms belonging to the (1s 2 2s 2 2p 6 )3s 2 3p, 3s3p 2 , 3s 2 3d, 3p 3 , 3s3p3d, 3p 2 3d, 3s3d 2 , 3s 2 4s, 3s 2 4p, 3s 2 4d, 3s 2 4f, and 3s3p4s configurations of Cu XVII. These states are represented by very extensive configuration-interaction (CI) wave functions obtained with the CIV3 (Configuration-Interaction Version 3) computer code of Hibbert. The important relativistic effects in intermediate coupling are incorporated by means of the Breit–Pauli Hamiltonian, which consists of the nonrelativistic term plus the one-body mass correction, Darwin term, and spin–orbit, spin–other-orbit, and spin–spin operators. To keep our calculated energy splittings as close as possible to the experimental values (wherever available), we have made small adjustments to the diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian matrices. Our calculated excitation energies, including their ordering, are in excellent agreement with the available experimental results. From our radiative decay rates we have also calculated radiative lifetimes of some fine-structure levels. The mixing among several fine-structure levels is found to be so strong that the correct identification of these levels becomes very difficult. We believe that our extensive calculations will be useful to experimentalists in identifying the fine-structure levels in their future work. In this calculation we also predict new data for several fine-structure levels where no other theoretical and (or) experimental results are available.

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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207