MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397571454 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2016-0167

Atomic structure calculations and study of line intensity ratio for Kr XXIV

2016· article· en· W2397571454 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arun Goyal, Narendra Singh, Sunny Aggarwal, A.K. Singh, Man Mohan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Standards and Technology
KeywordsPhysicsPlasmaAtomic physicsExcited stateRadiative transferComputational physicsDirac (video compression format)Line (geometry)Quantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we provide a detailed and elaborate theoretical study of atomic data along with plasma parameters for Kr XXIV. We have computed energy levels, lifetimes, and wave-function compositions for the lowest 148 fine-structure levels by implementing the multi-configuration Dirac–Fock method with the addition of quantum electrodynamics as well as Breit corrections. We have also given the radiative data among 148 levels for electric dipole (E1) transition, which lie in the extreme ultraviolet range. We have compared our calculated results with NIST and other theoretical results available in the literature and attain a good agreement. Because of the unavailability of sufficient and complete data for higher excited levels for Kr XXIV in the literature, a similar calculation has also been compiled using fully relativistic flexible atomic code (FAC) to access the credibility and integrity of our results. On the other hand, we have also presented the line intensity ratio and plasma parameters for optically thin plasma, which are not published anywhere in the literature, and we believe that our presented results may be advantageous in plasma modeling and astrophysical and fusion plasma research applications.

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 score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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