Both accurate and precise gf-values for Fe II lines

Free Access

Table 7:

Mean difference between our $\log gf$ values and those adopted in the literature.
Reference	This work - literature	# lines
Blackwell et al. (1980)	0.15 ( $\sigma = 0.09$ )	41
Gurtovenko & Kostik (1989)	0.21 ( $\sigma = 0.05$ )	55
Lambert et al. (1996)	-0.01 ( $\sigma = 0.06$ )	24
Fulbright (2000)	-0.01 ( $\sigma = 0.07$ )	26
Bensby et al. (2003)	0.11 ( $\sigma = 0.08$ )	37
Chen et al. (2003)	0.07 ( $\sigma = 0.04$ )	16
François et al. (2003)	-0.09 ( $\sigma = 0.12$ )	12
Gratton et al. (2003)	-0.02 ( $\sigma = 0.08$ )	42
Gratton et al. (2003) ( $\lambda > 4600$ Å)	0.00 ( $\sigma = 0.06$ )	34
Korn et al. (2003)	0.05 ( $\sigma = 0.07$ )	35
Reddy et al. (2003)	-0.01 ( $\sigma = 0.04$ )	9
Sneden et al. (2003)	0.02 ( $\sigma = 0.09$ )	11
Nissen et al. (2004)	0.04 ( $\sigma = 0.06$ )	19
Santos et al. (2004)	0.01 ( $\sigma = 0.03$ )	12
Aoki et al. (2005)	0.01 ( $\sigma= 0.11$ )	19
Sadakane et al. (2005)	0.02 ( $\sigma = 0.06$ )	11
Ivans et al. (2006)	0.02 ( $\sigma= 0.11$ )	19
Randich et al. (2006)	0.06 ( $\sigma = 0.06$ )	10
Sousa et al. (2008)	0.00 ( $\sigma = 0.07$ )	31

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.