MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020820700 · doi:10.1139/p05-036

Relativistic many-body calculations of excitation energies, line strengths, transition rates, and oscillator strengths in Pd-like ions

2005· article· en· W2020820700 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. S. Safronova, T. E. Cowan, W. R. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAtomic physicsExcitationPerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)CoulombIonDipoleEffective nuclear chargeCoulomb excitationGround stateLine (geometry)Quantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Excitation energies, line strengths, oscillator strengths, and transition probabilities are calculated for 4d –1 4f, 4d –1 5p, 4d –1 5f, and 4d –1 6p hole–particle states in Pd-like ions with nuclear charges Z ranging from 49 to 100. Relativistic many-body perturbation theory (MBPT), including the Breit interaction, is used to evaluate retarded E1 matrix elements in length and velocity forms. The calculations start from a [Kr] 4d 10 closed-shell Dirac–Hartree–Fock (DHF) potential and include second- and third-order Coulomb corrections and second-order Breit–Coulomb corrections. First-order perturbation theory is used to obtain intermediate-coupling coefficients and second-order MBPT is used to determine matrix elements. Contributions from negative-energy states are included in the second-order electric-dipole matrix elements. The resulting transition energies, line strengths, and transition rates are compared with experimental values and with other recent calculations. Trends of oscillator strengths as functions of nuclear charge Z are shown graphically for all transitions from the 4d –1 4f, 4d –1 5p, 4d –1 5f, and 4d –1 6p states to the ground state. PACS Nos.: 31.15.Ar, 31.15.Md, 32.70.Cs, 32.30.Rj, 31.25.Jf

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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