MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048800743 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.241201

<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math>band gap of ZnO: Effects of plasmon-pole models

2011· article· lv· W2048800743 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2011
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldMaterials Science
TopicZnO doping and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsPhysicsComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carefully converged calculations are performed for the band gap of ZnO within many-body perturbation theory (${G}^{0}{W}^{0}$ approximation). The results obtained using four different well-established plasmon-pole models are compared with those of explicit calculations without such models (the contour-deformation approach). This comparison shows that, surprisingly, plasmon-pole models depending on the $f$-sum rule gives less precise results. In particular, it confirms that the band gap of ZnO is underestimated in the ${G}^{0}{W}^{0}$ approach as compared to experiment, contrary to the recent claim of Shih et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 146401 (2010)].

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0830.005

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.228 · 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