MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965067692 · doi:10.1063/1.1524616

Relaxation of the structure of simple metal ion complexes in aqueous solutions at up to supercritical conditions

2002· article· en· W1965067692 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Mayanovic, Sumedha Jayanetti, Alan J. Anderson, William A. Bassett, I‐Ming Chou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryElectronegativityRelaxation (psychology)Aqueous solutionSolvationLigand (biochemistry)IonContext (archaeology)MoleculeCrystallographyChemical physicsPhysical chemistryThermodynamicsInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our previous x-ray absorption fine structure studies of aqueous solutions revealed relaxation of the structure of complexes of Zn2+, Fe2+, La3+, and Yb3+ ions with increasing temperature. These complexes in general exhibit reduction of cation–ligand bond lengths with increasing temperature due to hydrogen bond breaking and loss of water of solvation. Because this results in an overall lowering of the equilibrium state of the complex, we refer to the variation of the structure as relaxation. In the case of M(H2O)mn+ (m=6–9 at room temperature, n=2, 3) aquo ion complexes (M: Zn, Fe, La, Yb), there is a similar reduction in the number of coordinating water molecules with temperature. The relaxation of the structure is shown to result in a lowering of the binding energy per cation–ligand pair of a complex with increasing temperature. A comparison of the rate of structure relaxation with temperature, which is framed in the context of volume thermoelastic constriction, shows this quantity to have a gradual and direct dependence on the difference in Pauling’s electronegativity of the cation–ligand pairs making up the ion complex.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207