Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 Z3. 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".