Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying hydrogenic ions with high Z is an occasion to understand atomic structure. It also provides a reliable test of methods used to determine atomic structures. Many fields and applications require precise atomic data. For this reason, a hydrogen-like study is performed for lawrencium (Lr102+, Z = 103). The energy levels of hydrogen-like lawrencium are calculated with both multiconfiguration Hartree–Fock (MCHF) and multiconfiguration Dirac–Fock (MCDF) methods. The calculations contain Breit–Pauli relativistic corrections in MCHF calculation and the transverse photon and quantum electrodynamics (QED) effects in MCDF calculation along with electron correlations. In addition, some transition parameters (wavelengths, λ, logarithmic weighted oscillator strengths, log(gf) value, and transition probabilities, Aki) for allowed (E1) and forbidden (E2 and M1) transitions are investigated. The results from this study are compared with only a few theoretical works, but there is no available experimental data yet for Lr102+.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".