MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032213431 · doi:10.1063/1.1462582

The SiP molecule: The first observation and spectroscopic characterization

2002· article· en· W2032213431 on OpenAlexaff
Zygmunt J. Jakubek, S.G. Nakhate, Benoît Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcited stateChemistryAtomic physicsSpectral lineMoleculeFluorescenceExcitationGround stateAnalytical Chemistry (journal)PhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SiP molecules have been produced in a molecular free jet apparatus by laser vaporizing a silicon rod in the presence of He doped with phosphine (PH3) gas. Excitation spectra have been observed in the 21200–22350 cm–1 range by monitoring laser induced fluorescence. Dispersed fluorescence spectra have been recorded out of the upper states of the excitation bands. The ground electronic state is X 2Πi with the spin–orbit splitting A=−186.774(11) cm−1, the harmonic wavenumber ωe=615.7(6) cm−1, and the equilibrium internuclear distance re=2.0775(17) Å. Two excited electronic states, A 2Σ+ and B 2Σ+, are observed at T0=427.4(5) and 21317.1(1) cm−1, respectively. The harmonic wavenumbers, ωe, and the equilibrium internuclear distances, re, are 680(2) cm−1 and 1.9658(13) Å, respectively, for the A 2Σ+ state and 455(1) cm−1 and 2.1278(8) Å, respectively, for the B 2Σ+ state. For the X 2Πi, A 2Σ+, and B 2Σ+ electronic states, RKR potentials have been generated. Franck–Condon factors for the B–X, B–A, and A–X systems have been calculated. A 2Σ+, v∼X 2Π1/2, v+1 perturbations have been observed. A deperturbation procedure has yielded the off-diagonal spin–orbit electronic matrix element equal to 51(8) cm−1. This work represents the first spectroscopic investigation of the SiP molecule.

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 score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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