MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041973799 · doi:10.1063/1.2772849

Formulation of magnetically perturbed time-dependent density functional theory

2007· article· en· W2041973799 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Seth, Tom Ziegler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTime-dependent density functional theoryExcitationPhysicsPerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)Perturbation (astronomy)Statistical physicsDensity functional theoryQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A formulation of time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) in the presence of a static imaginary perturbation is derived. A perturbational approach is applied leading to corrections to various orders in the quantities of interest, namely, the excitation energies and transition densities. The perturbed TDDFT equations are relatively straightforward to derive but the resulting expressions are rather cumbersome. Simplifications of these equations are suggested. Both the simplified and full expressions are used to obtain equations for first- and second-order corrections to the excitation energy, the first-order correction to the transition density, and the corrections for both quantities to first-order in two different perturbations. This formulation, called magnetically perturbed TDDFT, details how conventional TDDFT calculations can be corrected to allow for the inclusion of a static magnetic field and/or spin-orbit coupling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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