MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016594879 · doi:10.1063/1.1767036

The first observation of the rhodium monofluoride molecule: Jet-cooled laser spectroscopic studies

2004· article· en· W2016594879 on OpenAlexaff
Runhua Li, Roy H. Jensen, Walter J. Balfour, Scott A. Shepard, A. G. Adam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Victoria
FundersBond University
KeywordsExcited stateGround stateAtomic physicsRhodiumSpectroscopyChemistryMolecular beamLaserLaser-induced fluorescenceFluorescence spectroscopyFluorescenceJet (fluid)Analytical Chemistry (journal)MoleculePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rhodium monofluoride has been observed and spectroscopically characterized. RhF molecules were produced under jet-cooled conditions in a laser vaporization molecular beam source by the reaction of a laser-vaporized rhodium plasma with SF(6) doped in helium, and studied with laser-induced fluorescence spectroscopy under both medium and high resolution. More than 25 bands have been observed in laser-induced fluorescence between 18,500 and 24,500 cm(-1) and five of these have been recorded at 200 MHz resolution. All bands of appreciable intensity have been rotationally analyzed. The ground electronic levels has Omega=2, which is attributed to an inverted (3)Pi state from the 2 delta(4)6 pi(3)12 sigma(1) electron configuration. The ground level rotational constants are B=0.272 45 cm(-1), D=1.035 x 10(-7) cm(-1). Very small ground level Lambda doublings are evident in the spectrum. Excited states having Omega=1, 2, and 3 have been identified. Dispersed fluorescence spectroscopy from 11 excited levels has been used to locate a large number of low-lying vibronic states within the energy range up to 8,000 cm(-1). A ground state vibrational interval of approximately 575 cm(-1) is suggested.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207