MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969998744 · doi:10.1039/b806287k

On the lifetimes and physical nature of incompletely relaxed electrons in liquid water

2008· article· en· W1969998744 on OpenAlexaff
Chunrong Wang, Ting Luo, Qing‐Bin Lu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolvationSolvated electronExcited stateElectronCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Chemical physicsAtomic physicsChemistryRange (aeronautics)PhysicsMaterials scienceIonAqueous solutionRadiolysisPhysical chemistryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite intense study over the past two decades, the dynamics of electron solvation in water, particularly regarding the physical properties and lifetimes of non-equilibrium, incompletely relaxed electrons, remain very controversial. Both experimental and theoretical studies have reported a very diverse range, from approximately 50 to approximately 1000 fs, for the lifetime of the p-like excited state of the hydrated electron, and the nature of incompletely relaxed states remains unclear. Here, we reveal that these controversies are to a great extent due to a hidden effect, i.e., the universal existence of a coherence spike at delay time zero in pump-probe spectroscopic kinetics traces. After removing this spike effect, we show that the intrinsic lifetimes of the two incompletely relaxed states in bulk water are 180+/-30 and 545+/-30 fs, respectively. Moreover, our results using iododeoxyuridine as a molecular probe reveal that both states are electronically excited states of the hydrated electron and the second state of a 545 fs lifetime is the long-sought wet electron. These results resolve the long-standing controversies about electron hydration dynamics.

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 score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations63
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Chemistry Chemical PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207