MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1659795248 · doi:10.1063/1.1497632

A conformational study of the S1(n,π*) excited state of formic acid

2002· article· en· W1659795248 on OpenAlexaff
Leanne M. Beaty-Travis, D. C. Moule, Edward C. Lim, R. H. Judge

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersUniversity of Akron
KeywordsConformational isomerismExcited stateTorsion (gastropod)Potential energy surfaceAb initioChemistrySaddle pointPotential energyAb initio quantum chemistry methodsMolecular physicsComputational chemistryAtomic physicsPhysicsMoleculeGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent high resolution data from the vibronic bands in the S1←S0 electronic transition in HCOOH were combined with UMP2 ab initio calculations to establish the torsion-wagging potential energy surface over θ=±90° for the torsional coordinate and α=±60° for the wagging angle for the S1 electronic state. The separations between the c- and a/b-type band origins were used to establish a global maximum of 5275 cm−1 for the torsion-wagging potential function. The stability of the structural conformers in the S1 state was obtained from the vibrational intervals in the OH torsional progression that were fitted to the levels calculated from a two dimensional torsion-wagging vibrational model. The fitted potential surface revealed a pair of stable conformers with minima at θ=+68.08, α=+57.51 and θ=−68.08, α=−57.51 deg. A second pair of conformers with minima at θ=−48.50, α=+44.77 or θ=+48.50, α=−44.77 deg was found to be 1207 cm−1 less stable and to be separated by a torsional saddle point of 1270 cm−1 from the more stable conformers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207