ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Model O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O B-Citation B-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O B-Model O O O O O O O B-Model O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O B-Model O O O O O O O B-Database I-Database I-Database B-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: the 14th column. f Experimental lifetime of the upper level used to normalize the oscillator strength and the transition probability given respectively in columns 11 and 12. g Reference of the experimental lifetime used to normalize the oscillator strength and the transition probability given respectively in columns 11 and 12. T = this work; B = Bimont etal. ( 2011 ); W = Wnnstrm etal. ( 1988 ); H = Hannaford etal. ( 1982 ). In Figs 2 4 , the present HFRCPOL oscillator strengths are compared with our previous values (Bimont etal. 2011 ), those of Kurucz (Kurucz 2011 ) and the experimental values of Hannaford etal. ( 1982 ), respectively. Although the latter concerns exclusively the decay transitions of low-lying odd-parity levels (Hannaford etal. 1982 ), they nonetheless provide a good test of the present HFRCPOL model. Figure 2. Comparison between the present HFRCPOL log gf values and those of our previous study (Bimont etal. 2011 ). A straight line of equality has been drawn. Fig. 2 shows a good agreement between our two calculations with no systematic effects, as the core-polarization has been taken into account in both models. However, some discrepancies are seen for the weak transitions due to cancellations such as the transition at 733.295nm with log gf 3.08 and a cancellation factor of CF0.07 in this work, compared to log gf 1.98 obtained with our previous model. In this particular case, it is advisable to use our older published value (Bimont etal. 2011 ), i.e. 1.98, that belongs to a smaller set of calculated strong (log gf 2) decay transitions being not affected by cancellation. Besides, Kurucz ( 2011 ) gives a value of 2.87 for that line. We suspect that this oscillator strength is also affected by cancellation as it is calculated 1 dex weaker than the value of Bimont etal. ( 2011 ), similarly to the present calculation. Unfortunately, CF values are not reported in Kurucz ( 2011 ). Fig. 3 shows that the oscillator strengths computed by Kurucz ( 2011 ) are systematically larger than ours by, on average, 0.07 dex for lines with log gf 0. Furthermore, a significant number (92 transitions out of 357) of the lines with log gf 0 are affected by strong cancellation effects (CF0.1) showing discrepancies of one dex or more. Using our log gf -values with CF0.1 is not recommended as these values could be off by a few dex. Moreover, values of Kurucz ( 2011 ) that are weaker than ours by a few dex should be taken with care as we suspect that they are affected by strong cancellation effects similarly to the case of the line at 733.295nm discussed previously. Figure 3. Comparison between the present HFRCPOL log gf values and those of the Kuruczs data base (Kurucz 2011 ). A straight line of equality has been drawn. In Fig. 4 , it is seen that our HFRCPOL log gf -values agree well with the experimental determinations of Hannaford etal. ( 1982 ), the standard deviation of the differences between the two sets being 0.11 dex. From this comparison, one