MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913349612 · doi:10.1139/v09-064

Spin–orbit ab initio investigation of the UV photoinduced bond cleavage in iodotrimethylstannane

2009· article· en· W1913349612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nadia Ben Amor, Chantal Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence Properties of Advanced Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsChemistryComplete active spaceAb initioHomolysisIonic bondingMolecular orbitalAb initio quantum chemistry methodsBond cleavageRadicalComputational chemistryDensity functional theoryBasis setIonMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The photoinduced homolytic cleavage of the Sn–I bond in iodotrimethylstannane (CH 3 ) 3 SnI, observed after UV irradiation, is investigated by means of spin–orbit ab initio calculations based on CASSCF (complete active space self-consistent field) and MS-CASPT2 (multi-state complete active space 2 nd order perturbation theory) methods. The absorption electronic spectrum is characterized by ten low-lying 1,3 A′ and 1,3 A″ spin eigenstates corresponding to p y (I),p x (I) → σ* SnI ; σ SnI → σ* SnI and p y (Sn), p x (Sn) → σ* SnI , where σ SnI and σ* SnI are the bonding and anti-bonding orbitals of the Sn–I bond along the p z axis. From the 1 A′ electronic ground state and these ten spin eigenstates, 21 spin–orbit states are generated leading to various deactivation channels of (CH 3 ) 3 SnI, corresponding to the formation of radicals (CH 3 ) 3 Sn • and • I and to the ionic species (CH 3 ) 3 Sn + and I – . Irradiation into the upper band at 175 nm should lead to the heterolytic cleavage of the Sn–I bond to form the ionic primary products exclusively, whereas absorption into the shoulder at 250 nm induces the homolytic breaking with formation of the radical products.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicLuminescence Properties of Advanced MaterialsFrench-language works237,207