MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966592562 · doi:10.1021/jp001051l

Unimolecular Reactions of Proton-Bound Cluster Ions:  Competition between Dissociation and Isomerization in the Ethanol−Acetonitrile Dimer

2000· article· en· W1966592562 on OpenAlexaff
Richard A. Ochran, Alagappan Annamalai, P. Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsomerizationChemistryDimerDissociation (chemistry)Transition stateComputational chemistryPhotochemistryAb initioPolarizabilityMoleculePhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proton-bound dimer of acetonitrile and ethanol, (CH 3 CN)(CH 3 CH 2 OH)H +, exhibits three unimolecular reactions on the microsecond time scale: two simple bond cleavage reactions to form CH 3 CNH + + CH 3 CH 2 OH and CH 3 CH 2 OH 2 + + CH 3 CN, and the loss of water to form CH 3 CNCH 2 CH 3 + . The latter process is preceded by the isomerization of the proton-bound dimer to a second isomer, (CH 3 CNCH 2 CH 3 )(H 2 O) + . The competition between the simple dissociation reactions and the isomerization reaction was modeled with ab initio calculations and RRKM theory to obtain relative energies for the reaction surface. The 0 K binding energy of the (CH 3 CN)(CH 3 CH 2 OH)H + complex was calculated to be 152 kJ mol -1 at the G2(MP2,SVP) level of theory (relative to the dissociation products CH 3 CNH + and CH 3 CH 2 OH). The isomerization barrier for the proton-bound dimer was estimated to be 22 kJ mol -1 lower than CH 3 CNH + + CH 3 CH 2 OH. The greater polarizability of the ethyl group is believed to stabilize this transition structure over that found for the (CH 3 CN)(CH 3 OH)H + ion (which was previously estimated to lie 6 kJ mol -1 below CH 3 CNH + and CH 3 OH).

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 score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations21
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207