Comparative study of DFT/B3LYP, B3PW91, and HSEH1PBE methods applied to molecular structures and spectroscopic and electronic properties of flufenpyr and amipizone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimized molecular structures, conformational analyses, vibrational (IR) frequencies and their assignments, maximum electronic absorption wavelengths (gas phase and in ethanol solvent), 1H and 13C NMR chemical shift values (gas phase and in CDCl3 solvent), HOMO−LUMO analysis, molecular electrostatic potential surfaces, and nonlinear optical properties of flufenpyr (C14H9ClF4N2O4) and amipizone (C14H16ClN3O) compounds that have many biological activities have been calculated using the DFT/B3LYP, B3PW91, and HSEH1PBE methods with the 6-311G(d,p) basis set in the ground state. A comparison among the results calculated at the mentioned levels indicates that the HSEH1PBE calculations give usually greater values compared with the others in terms of vibrational frequencies, the maximum electronic absorption wavelengths, and HOMO−LUMO energy gaps of the title compounds.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".