MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951557377 · doi:10.1007/s00214-015-1726-3

Dissecting the bond-formation process of d 10-metal–ethene complexes with multireference approaches

2015· article· en· W1951557377 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical Chemistry Accounts · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersHungarian Scientific Research FundMitacsCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster UniversitySchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDensity functional theoryDensity matrix renormalization groupComplete active spaceCovalent bondPalladiumAtom (system on chip)Cluster (spacecraft)Field (mathematics)Metal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bonding mechanism of ethene to a nickel or palladium center is studied by the density matrix renormalization group algorithm, the complete active space self-consistent field method, coupled cluster theory, and density functional theory. Specifically, we focus on the interaction between the metal atom and bis-ethene ligands in perpendicular and parallel orientations. The bonding situation in these structural isomers is further scrutinized using energy decomposition analysis and quantum information theory. Our study highlights the fact that when two ethene ligands are oriented perpendicular to each other, the complex is stabilized by the metal-to-ligand double-back-bonding mechanism. Moreover, we demonstrate that nickel–ethene complexes feature a stronger and more covalent interaction between the ligands and the metal center than palladium–ethene compounds with similar coordination spheres.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical Chemistry AccountsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207