MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Precision Calculation of Hyperfine Structure and the Zemach Radii of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Li</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mprescripts/><mml:none/><mml:mrow><mml:mn>6</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn>7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math> Ions

2020· article· lv· W3083104939 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiao-Qiu Qi, Pei-Pei Zhang, Zong-Chao Yan, G. W. F. Drake, Zhen-Xiang Zhong, Ting-Yun Shi, Shao‐Long Chen, Yao Huang, Hua Guan, Kelin Gao

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Windsor
FundersK. C. Wong Education FoundationChinese Academy of SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hyperfine structures of the 2^{3}S_{1} states of the ^{6}Li^{+} and ^{7}Li^{+} ions are investigated theoretically to extract the Zemach radii of the ^{6}Li and ^{7}Li nuclei by comparing with precision measurements. The obtained Zemach radii are larger than the previous values of Puchalski and Pachucki [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 243001 (2013)PRLTAO0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.111.243001] and disagree with them by about 1.5 and 2.2 standard deviations for ^{6}Li and ^{7}Li, respectively. Furthermore, our Zemach radius of ^{6}Li differs significantly from the nuclear physics value, derived from the nuclear charge and magnetic radii [Phys. Rev. A 78, 012513 (2008)PLRAAN1050-294710.1103/PhysRevA.78.012513] by more than 6σ, indicating an anomalous nuclear structure for ^{6}Li. The conclusion that the Zemach radius of ^{7}Li is about 40% larger than that of ^{6}Li is confirmed. The obtained Zemach radii are used to calculate the hyperfine splittings of the 2^{3}P_{J} states of ^{6,7}Li^{+}, where an order of magnitude improvement over the previous theory has been achieved for ^{7}Li^{+}.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6010.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207