MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967062590 · doi:10.1021/jp0041297

First-Principle Molecular Dynamic Simulations along the Intrinsic Reaction Paths

2001· article· en· W1967062590 on OpenAlexafffund
Artur Michalak, Tom Ziegler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConrotatory and disrotatoryCyclobuteneIsomerizationMolecular dynamicsSN2 reactionComputational chemistryRing (chemistry)Ab initioReaction coordinateChemistryPhysicsStatistical physicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsStereochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presented is an algorithm for performing the ab initio molecular dynamic (MD) simulations along the predetermined intrinsic reaction paths (IRP). The proposed approach has been implemented within the projector-augmented-wave DFT methodology (PAW program). The slow-growth MD simulations along the IRP has been applied for the reactions of (i) the HCN → CNH isomerization reaction, (ii) the conrotatory ring opening of cyclobutene, (iii) the prototype SN2 reaction Cl - + CH 3 Cl → ClCH 3 + Cl -, and (iv) the chloropropene isomerization Cl−CH 2 −CH CH 2 → CH 2 CH−CH 2 Cl. The results show that the slow-growth MD approach along the predetermined IRP leads to smooth free-energy profiles; use of a well-defined reaction coordinate (RC) reduces the problem of the free-energy hysteresis. Thus, the slow-growth simulations along the IRP typically require less time steps than the standard approach with an a priori chosen RC. The illustrative examples show that the applied methodology works well for the reactions involving concerted changes in many geometrical variables as well as in the cases when the finite-temperature paths strongly deviate from the IRP.

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 score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 head0.263
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations48
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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