MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898823909 · doi:10.1063/1.5053128

Broadband models and their consequences on line shape analysis in vibrational sum-frequency spectroscopy

2018· article· en· W2898823909 on OpenAlexafffund
Weichen Yang, Dennis K. Hore

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpectroscopySum-frequency generationSpectral lineRaman scatteringRaman spectroscopyHomodyne detectionAmplitudeMolecular vibrationOpticsLine (geometry)Computational physicsChemistryPhysicsNonlinear opticsMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vibrational sum-frequency generation (SFG) spectroscopy can provide valuable qualitative and quantitative information about molecular species at surface and buried interfaces. For example, the resonance frequency of a particular chemical function group is revealing of the surface environment, especially when compared to what is observed in bulk IR absorption or Raman scattering spectra. Furthermore, the amplitude of the mode can be related to the molecular orientation, providing a detailed quantitative account of the surface structure. Each of these attributes, however, requires fitting the spectra to some vibrationally resonant line shape. This is particularly challenging when the modes of interest co-exist with broad resonance features, such as water O-H stretching. In this perspective, we examine the merits and consequences of different approaches to fitting homodyne SFG data. We illustrate that, while any model can provide a useful description of the data, no model can accurately and consistently provide even the relative phase deeply encoded in homodyne data without the use of additional information.

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 score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207