MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115594252 · doi:10.1139/p04-065

Second-order relativistic corrections for the <i>S</i>(<i>L</i>=0) states in one- and two-electron atomic systems

2005· article· en· W2115594252 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Alexei M. Frolov, Catalin Mitelut, Zheng Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsGravitational singularityElectronOperator (biology)Order (exchange)Dirac (video compression format)Quantum mechanicsTheoretical physicsAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analytical approach is developed to compute the first- (~α 2 ) and second-order (~α 4 ) relativistic corrections in one- and two-electron atomic systems. The approach is based on the reduction of all operators to divergent (singular) and nondivergent (regular) parts. Then, we show that all the divergent parts from the differentmatrix elements cancel each other. The remaining expression contains only regular operators and its expectation value can be easily computed. Analysis of the S(L = 0) states in such systems is of specific interest since the corresponding operators for these states contain a large number of singularities. For one-electron systems the computed relativistic corrections coincide exactly with the appropriate result that follows from the Taylor expansion of the relativistic (i.e., Dirac) energy. We also discuss an alternative approach that allows one to cancel all singularities by using the so-called operator-compensation technique. This second approach is found to be very effective in applications of more complex systems, such as helium-like atoms and ions, H + 2 -like ions, and some exotic three-body systems.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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