MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996140793 · doi:10.1021/ja003372g

On the Importance of Prereactive Complexes in Molecule−Radical Reactions:  Hydrogen Abstraction from Aldehydes by OH

2001· article· en· W1996140793 on OpenAlexaff
J. Raúl Alvarez‐Idaboy, Nelaine Mora‐Diez, Russell J. Boyd, Annik Vivier‐Bunge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAcetaldehydeFormaldehydeTransition state theoryHydrogen atom abstractionAb initioComputational chemistryReaction rate constantMoleculeHydrogenRadicalPhysical chemistryTransition stateQuantum tunnellingActivation energyReaction mechanismPhotochemistryOrganic chemistryKineticsQuantum mechanicsCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, the OH + formaldehyde and OH + acetaldehyde reactions have been characterized using accurate ab initio methods with large basis sets. The results clearly indicate that the reaction occurs by hydrogen abstraction, and that the OH addition channel is unfavorable. Close to zero (for formaldehyde) and negative (for acetaldehyde) activation energy values are obtained, which are in excellent agreement with the experimentally observed values. The reaction rate constants, calculated using the classical transition-state theory as applied to a complex mechanism involving the formation of a prereactive complex, reproduce very well the reported experimental results. Consideration of the prereactive complex is shown to be essential for the determination of the height of the energy barrier and thus for the correct calculation of the tunneling factor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations266
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207