MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392094139 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adj8632

Theory cracks old data: Rovibrational energy levels of <i>ortho</i> H <sub>2</sub> –CO derived from experiment

2024· article· en· W4392094139 on OpenAlexaff
Marcin Stachowiak, Ewelina Grabowska, Xiaogang Wang, Tucker Carrington, Krzysztof Szalewicz, Piotr Jankowski

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotational–vibrational spectroscopyvan der Waals forceSpectral lineRange (aeronautics)SpectroscopyPhysicsSpectrum (functional analysis)Energy (signal processing)Interpretation (philosophy)Statistical physicsQuantumComputational physicsAtomic physicsQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceMoleculeMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurements of rovibrational spectra of clusters provide physical insight only if spectral lines can be assigned to pairs of quantum states, and further insight is obtained if one can deduce the quantitative energy-level pattern. Both steps can be so difficult that some measured spectra remain unassigned, one example is ortho H 2 –CO. To extend the scope of spectroscopic insights, we propose to use theoretical information in interpretation of spectra. We first performed high accuracy, full-dimensional calculations of the ortho H 2 –CO spectrum, at the highest practically achievable levels of electronic structure theory and quantum nuclear dynamics. Then, an iterative, theory-guided method developed here allowed us to fully interpret the spectrum of ortho H 2 –CO, extending the range of van der Waals clusters for which spectroscopy can provide physical insights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.296
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207