Theoretical Comparison of Ketene Dimerization in the Gas and Liquid Phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the first theoretical comparison between ketene dimerization in gas phase and ketene dimerization in solution. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations on the ketene dimerization were carried out considering the following product dimers: diketene (d-I), 1,3-cyclobutanedione (d-II), 2,4-dimethylene-1,3-dioxetane (d-III), and 2-methyleneoxetan-3-one (d-IV). All structures were optimized at the PW86x+PBEc/DZP level of theory. Based on these geometries, a total of 58 meta and hybrid functionals were used to evaluate the heat of dimerization. The MPW1K functional was found to fit the experimental data best and subsequently used in the final analyses for all energy calculations. It was found on both kinetic and thermodynamic grounds that only d-I and d-II are formed during ketene dimerization in gas phase and solution. In gas phase, d-I is favored over d-II by 2 kcal/mol. However, the dimerization barrier for d-I is 1 kcal/mol higher than for d-II. Solvation makes dimerization more favorable. On the enthalpic surface this is due to a favorable interaction between the dimer dipole moment and solvent molecules. The dimer is stabilized further on the Gibbs energy surface by an increase of the dimerization entropy in solution compared to gas phase. The species d-I remains the most stable dimer in solution by 1 kcal/mol. Kinetically, the dimerization barriers for the relevant species d-I and d-II are cut in half by solvation, due to both favorable dimer-dipole/solvent interactions (DeltaH++, DeltaG++) and an increase in the activation entropies (DeltaS++). While the dimerization barrier for d-II is lowest for the gas phase and toluene, the barrier for d-I formation becomes lowest for the more polar solvent acetone by 1 kcal/mol as d-I dimerization has the most polar transition state.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".