MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973972664 · doi:10.1063/1.2238861

Quantum effects in liquid water and ice: Model dependence

2006· article· en· W1973972664 on OpenAlexaff
Lisandro Hernández de la Peña, Peter G. Kusalik

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater modelQuantumMolecular dynamicsContext (archaeology)Quantum dynamicsLiquid waterPhysicsPotential energyPoint particleThermodynamicsChemistryQuantum mechanicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the influence of choice of potential model on the quantum effects observed in liquid water and ice. This study utilizes standard rigid models and a more formal context for the rigid-body centroid molecular dynamics methodology used to perform the quantum simulations is provided. Quantum and classical molecular dynamics simulations are carried out for liquid water and ice Ih at 298 and 220 K, respectively, with the simple point charge/extended and TIP4P-Ew water models. The results obtained for equilibrium and dynamical properties are compared with those recently reported on TIP4P [L. Hernandez de la Pena and P. G. Kusalik, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 5992 (2004); L. Hernandez de la Pena et al., J. Chem. Phys 123, 144506 (2005)]. For the liquid, an energy shift of about 8% and an average molecular uncertainty of about 11 degrees were found independently of the water model. The self-diffusion coefficient consistently increases by more than 50% when going from the classical to the quantum system and quantum dynamics are found to reproduce the experimental isotopic shifts with the models examined. The ice results compare remarkably well with those previously reported for the TIP4P water model; they confirm that quantum effects are considerable and that the quantum mechanical uncertainty and the energy shifts due to quantization are smaller in ice than in liquid water. The relevance of these findings in the context of the construction of water models is briefly discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations58
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamicsFrench-language works237,207