MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741147771 · doi:10.15278/isms.2017.wk02

HIGH RESOLUTION LASER SPECTROSCOPY OF THE [15.45]0 – a3∆1 TRANSITION OF TANTALUM MONONITRIDE, TaN

2017· article· en· W2741147771 on OpenAlexaff
C. Linton, Damian L. Kokkin, Timothy C. Steimle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersDivision of ChemistryNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHyperfine structureQuadrupoleAtomic physicsSpectroscopyDipoleChemistryLaser-induced fluorescenceElectron configurationStark effectElectronic structureLaserSpectral lineElectronPhysicsOpticsComputational chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy polar molecules have been used for some time in experiments designed to measure the permanent molecular electric dipole moment, EDM, that is induced by the electron electric dipole moment, eEDM. More recently, 181 TaN has been proposed b as a prime candidate for experiments to measure the EDM induced by the magnetic quadrupole moment, MQM, of the nucleus. There have been a number of calculations to predict these quantities and hyperfine structure parameters are useful indicators of the quality of the electronic wavefunctions used in these calculations with the low-lying a 3 1 state being of particular interest cd . High resolution Laser Induced Fluorescence (LIF) spectra of the of the 0-0 band of the [15.45]0 -a 3 1 transition of TaN have been obtained using the laser ablation source at Arizona State University. Tantalum hyperfine structure was completely resolved and magnetic and quadrupole hyperfine parameters were determined and, where available, have been compared with predicted values. Calculations of the molecular hyperfine constants using atomic hyperfine parameters have been used to determine the nature and configurations of the electronic states.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207