MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040151814 · doi:10.1139/p07-116

Atoms through the looking glass – a relativistic challenge

2008· article· en· W2040151814 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ann-Marie Pendrill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsPhysicsHyperfine structureParity (physics)Atomic nucleusEffective nuclear chargeAtomic physicsElectronQuantum mechanicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The search for weak-interaction-induced atomic parity nonconservation, initiated in the 1970s, challenges both theory and experiment. Since the weak interaction is very short range, the atomic effects increase rapidly with nuclear charge, as Z 3 . The focus has thus been on heavy atoms, where relativistic effects are essential, and nuclear size must be taken into account. The generalization of atomic many-body methods to relativistic systems involved both computational and formal difficulties, incorporating methods developed in quantum electrodynamics. Twenty years ago, the ability to treat atomic pair correlation in a relativistic framework was emerging. The application to many-electron systems opened up for comparison with experiment for many atomic properties, such as isotope shifts, hyperfine structure, and hyperfine anomalies, which reflect nuclear properties. In addition, the search for simultaneous violation of both parity- and time-reversal symmetry involves different types of effects, including nuclear “Schiff moments”. Comparison between computed and experimental results for highly charged hydrogen-like systems provides a test of the theoretical and numerical treatment of the electron–nucleus interaction and of the description of nuclear distributions.PACS Nos.: 31.15.Dv, 31.25.–v, 31.30.Gs, 21.10.Ft, 21.10.Ky, 32.80.Ys, 11.30.Er

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 score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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