The complex of HF2− and H2O: A theoretical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complex of HF2− and H2O is studied using B3LYP, MP2, and QCISD methods. Energetics, geometries, and vibrational frequencies of the equilibrium structure and two transition states are calculated using 6-311++G(d,p), 6-311++G(2d,2p), and 6-311++G(2df,2pd) basis sets. For the equilibrium structure there is a hydrogen bond between one of the F atoms of HF2− and one of the H atoms of H2O. The two transition states are only about 0.5 kcal/mol higher. The HF2−–H2O equilibrium structure is planar and, at the B3LYP/6-311++G(2df,2pd) level, the F–H–O bond angle is nearly linear at 174.4° and the F–O distance is 2.59 Å. With zero point energy and counterpoise correction, the binding energy is 14.9 kcal/mol and the strong hydrogen bond of HF2− is weakened by 11.3 kcal/mol (25%). In HF2− the experimental F–F distance is 2.28 Å and the F–H–F bond angle is 180°. The most intense IR vibration is the F–H–F asymmetric stretch at 1331 cm−1. In HF2− the calculated F–F distance is 2.30 Å and in the HF2−–H2O equilibrium structure the F–H distance for the hydrogen bonded F atom is longer by 0.13 Å but the F–H distance for the free F atom is shorter by 0.10 Å and the F–F distance is only 0.03 Å longer. The F–H–F bond angle is very close to linear at 179.4°. The most intense IR vibration remains the F–H–F asymmetric stretch, blueshifted by 648 cm−1. The F–H–O asymmetric stretch is also an intense IR vibration, redshifted by 729 cm−1 from the O–H local mode stretch for H2O.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".