Noble gas–metal chemical bonding? The microwave spectra, structures, and hyperfine constants of Ar–CuX(X=F, Cl, Br)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rotational spectra of the complexes Ar–CuF, Ar–CuCl, and Ar–CuBr have been observed in the frequency range 5–22 GHz using a pulsed-jet cavity Fourier transform microwave spectrometer. All the complexes are linear and rather rigid in the ground vibrational state, with the Ar–Cu stretching frequency estimated as ∼200 cm−1. Isotopic data have been used to calculate an r0 structure for Ar–CuF, while for Ar–CuCl and Ar–CuBr partial substitution structures have also been obtained. To reduce zero-point vibrational effects a double substitution method (rd) has also been employed to calculate the structures of Ar–CuCl and Ar–CuBr. The Ar–Cu distance has been found to be rather short and to range from 2.22 Å in Ar–CuF to 2.30 Å in Ar–CuBr. Ab initio calculations at the MP2 level of theory model the geometries and stretching frequencies well and predict an Ar–Cu bond energy in Ar–CuF of ∼47.3 kJ mol−1. Large changes in the Cu nuclear quadrupole coupling constant on complex formation show that extensive charge rearrangement occurs upon formation of the complexes. This, in conjunction with the sizable dissociation energy, suggests that the Ar–Cu bonds in these complexes are weakly covalent. The rotational spectrum of CuF has also been reinvestigated to improve the hyperfine constants.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it