Partial Paschen–Back splitting of Si <scp>ii</scp>and Si <scp>iii</scp>lines in magnetic chemically peculiar stars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modelling of the spectra of magnetic A and B main-sequence stars is generally done assuming that all the lines are split by the magnetic field according to the Zeeman effect. However, a number of prominent spectral lines are produced by closely spaced doublets or triplets. Such lines should be treated using the theory of the partial Paschen–Back (PPB) effect. Depending on the strength and orientation of magnetic field, the PPB effect can result in the Stokes I and V profiles of a spectral line that differ significantly from those predicted by the Zeeman effect theory. It is important to understand the size and types of errors that are introduced into magnetic spectrum synthesis by treating such lines with the usual Zeeman splitting theory rather than using the correct theoretical treatment of line splitting. To estimate the error introduced by the use of the Zeeman approximation, numerical simulations have been performed for spectral lines of the element silicon, for which a number of important lines are actually in the PPB regime, assuming an oblique rotator model, for various silicon abundances and V sin i values. A comparative analysis of the Stokes I and V profiles calculated assuming the PPB and Zeeman splitting has been carried out for a number of both strong and weak Si ii and Si iii lines. The analysis indicates that for high precision studies of some spectral lines the PPB approach should be used if the field strength at the magnetic poles is Bp > 10 kG. In the case of the Si ii line 5041 Å, the difference between the two simulated profiles is caused by a significant contribution from a so-called ‘ghost’ line. The Stokes I and V profiles of this particular line simulated taking into account PPB splitting provide a significantly better fit to the observed profiles in the spectrum of the magnetic Ap star HD 318107 than the profiles calculated with Zeeman splitting. Employing the PPB approach, the Si ii 5041 Å line can become a useful tool for abundance mapping and reconstruction of magnetic field configuration due to its sensitivity to the silicon abundance and to the magnetic field strength.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".