MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512894869 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2016-0317

Energy levels and radiative transitions of the K-shell excited sextet states in boron-like sulfur ion

2016· article· en· W2512894869 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Sun, Cuicui Sang, Kaikai Li, Feng Hu, Dongdong Liu, BingCong Gou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSpecial Foundation for Theoretical Physics Research Program of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of QinghaiNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhysicsAtomic physicsExcited stateDipoleIonPerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)Radiative transferPolarization (electrochemistry)Quantum mechanicsPhysical chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theoretical calculations are reported for energy levels and transition probabilities of the K-shell excited sextet series 6 S e,o (m) and 6 P o,e (m) (m = 1–7) for the astrophysically important element sulfur. Energy levels, fine structure splittings, and transition parameters of the high-lying sextet series 6 S e,o (m) and 6 P o,e (m) (m = 1–7) in boron-like sulfur ion are calculated with the multi-configuration Rayleigh–Ritz variation method. To obtain the accurate energy level, the relativistic corrections and mass polarization effect are included by using the first-order perturbation theory. Configuration structures of these sextet series are assigned according to the energies, percentage contributions of basis states to the eigenvector, relativistic effect corrections, and verification of fine structure splittings. The oscillator strengths, transition probabilities, and wavelengths of electric-dipole transitions between 6 S o,e (m) and 6 P e,o (m) (m = 1–7) states are also systematically calculated and discussed.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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