Quadrupole interactions: NMR, NQR, and in between from a single viewpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nuclear spins with quantum numbers >1/2 can interact with a static magnetic field, or a local electric field gradient, to produce quantized energy levels. If the magnetic field interaction dominates, we are doing nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). If the interaction of the nuclear electric quadrupole with electric field gradients is much stronger, this is nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR). The two are extremes of a continuum, as the ratio of one interaction to the other changes. In this work, we look at this continuum from a single, unified viewpoint based on a Liouville-space approach: the direct method. This method does not require explicit operators and their commutators, unlike Hamiltonian methods. We derive both the quadrupole-perturbed NMR solution and also the Zeeman-perturbed NQR results. Furthermore, we examine the polarization of these signals, because this is different between pure NMR and pure NQR spectroscopy. Spin 3/2 is the focus here, but the approach is perfectly general and can be applied to any spin. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".