MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1644230207 · doi:10.1063/1.1327262

Bonding in Nb3O, Nb3S and Nb3Se: A topological analysis of the electrostatic potential

2001· article· en· W1644230207 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Martı́nez, Patrizia Calaminici, Andreas M. Köster, Dennis R. Salahub

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicInorganic Chemistry and Materials
Canadian institutionsSteacie Institute for Molecular Sciences
FundersCentro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional
KeywordsCationic polymerizationOxygen atomChemistryDensity functional theoryBinding energyCluster (spacecraft)Atom (system on chip)Ground stateComputational chemistryCrystallographyTopology (electrical circuits)MoleculeAtomic physicsPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structures of different neutral and cationic isomers of Nb3O, Nb3S and Nb3Se were optimized within the framework of Kohn–Sham density functional theory. For Nb3O, neutral and cationic, the lowest minimum is a planar C2v structure with an edge-bound oxygen atom. The binding energy of the oxygen to the Nb3 cluster is 184.9 kcal/mol, 185.4 kcal/mol for the cationic system. For Nb3S and Nb3Se, neutral and cationic, the lowest minima are three-dimensional structures. The corresponding binding energies are 137.9, 138.1, 131.8 and 132.3 kcal/mol for Nb3S, Nb3S+, Nb3Se and Nb3Se+, respectively. In order to explain the different ground state structures of Nb3O, on the one hand, and Nb3S and Nb3Se, on the other, in terms of the nature of the bonding in each of them a topological analysis of the molecular electrostatic potential was performed. The different relative stabilities of two- and three-dimensional structures can be explained on the basis of bond critical points in the molecular electrostatic potential.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicInorganic Chemistry and MaterialsFrench-language works237,207