MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971504990 · doi:10.1002/jcc.20572

Free energy profiles for monomer capture in Grubbs‐ and SHOP‐type olefin polymerization catalysts: A constraint <i>ab initio</i> molecular dynamics study

2006· article· en· W1971504990 on OpenAlexaff
Shengyong Yang, Mingli Xiang, Lijuan Chen, Guobin Xie, Bing Shi, Tom Ziegler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganometallic Complex Synthesis and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAb initioEthyleneCatalysisChemistryMonomerPolymerizationDensity functional theoryMolecular dynamicsPhysical chemistryComputational chemistryPolymer chemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Density functional theory together with Car-Parrinello ab initio molecular dynamics simulation has been used to investigate the free energy profiles (FEP) of monomer capture in Grubbs- and SHOP-type olefin polymerization catalysts. The FEPs along the reaction coordinates at 300 K were determined directly by a point wise thermodynamic integration technique. Comparison between potential energy profile (PEP) and the FEP has been made. The results show that, for both catalysts, the PEP for the monomer ethylene uptake by the metal center is a typical Morse curve without energy barrier. However, a small barrier (1.8 kcal/mol for Grubbs catalyst and 2.4 kcal/mol for SHOP catalyst) exists on the FEP. The pi complexation energy on the FES at 300 K is higher by 10-12 kcal/mol over that on the PES. The differences between FES and PES are due to entropy contribution. Slow growth simulations on the ethylene capture process show that the ethylene attacks the metal center by an asynchronous mode. This indicates that the forming of the pi-bonding between the metal and ethylene is initiated by electrophilic attack of the metal to one of the ethylene carbons.

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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational ChemistrySame topicOrganometallic Complex Synthesis and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207