MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581342200 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2016-0859

New simultaneous fit of <sup>12</sup>CD<sub>4</sub> transitions in the 0–2400 cm<sup>−1</sup> region

2017· article· en· W2581342200 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Okkacha Ouardi, Mohamed Meskine, Abdelkrim Karrour

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Laser Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRotational–vibrational spectroscopyHamiltonian (control theory)Root mean squareSpectral lineAtomic physicsGround stateLine (geometry)GeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the global analysis of 12 CD 4 line positions from high-resolution rovibrational spectra, including accurate lines in the region 0–2400 cm − 1 . In addition to the lines of P 0 –P 0 and P 1 –P 1 (where P 0 is the ground state (GS), and P 1 is the dyad (ν 2 , ν 4 )), this region covers two cold polyads: P 1 (900–1220 cm − 1 , two vibrational levels, two sublevels) and the pentad (2ν 4 , ν 2 + ν 4 , ν 1 , 2ν 2 , ν 3 ) or P 2 (1850–2400 cm − 1 , five vibrational levels, nine sublevels). In this analysis, 2724 assignments from four sources are fitted using an effective Hamiltonian expanded up to the sixth order for the pentad. For the assignments and analysis, we use the SPVIEW and XTDS software programs that implement the tensorial formalism developed in the Dijon group for tetrahedral molecules. Among the 454 parameters of the effective Hamiltonian for the pentad (of which 10 are relative to the GS (or P 0 ) and 72 are relative to the dyad), 233 were fitted (10 of which are GS and 37 of which are dyad). The 47 parameters for the dyad and the 233 parameters for the pentad allow very good simulations to be made. For this study, a total of 2724 line positions were used in the least squares adjustment characterized by the following global root mean square deviations d RMS for line positions: 0.01 × 10 −4 cm − 1 for P 0 –P 0 , 0.4 × 10 −4 cm − 1 for P 1 –P 1 , 1.3 × 10 −4 cm − 1 for the dyad, and 0.7 × 10 −4 cm − 1 for the pentad. XTDS and SPVIEW, which can simulate spectra, allowed us to verify and compare the calculated spectrum, to the experimental spectrum for the dyad and pentad regions of 12 CD 4 and to a spectrum obtained from variational calculation and from ab initio DMS (TheoReTS information system http://theorets.univ-reims.fr or http://theorets.tsu.ru ).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Laser ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207