MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996142929 · doi:10.1002/prep.201000165

A G4MP2 and G4 Theoretical Study into the Thermochemical Properties of Explosophore Substituted Tetrahedranes and Cubanes

2011· article· en· W1996142929 on OpenAlexafffund
Sierra Rayne, Kaya Forest

Bibliographic record

VenuePropellants Explosives Pyrotechnics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsOkanagan College
FundersWestern Canada Research Grid
KeywordsCubaneChemistryNitroStandard enthalpy of formationDecompositionThermal decompositionGas phaseComputational chemistryExplosive materialAzideCombinatorial chemistryOrganic chemistryMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High level G4MP2/G4 composite theoretical method thermochemical calculations were conducted on the parent tetrahedrane and cubane compounds and a suite of 20 mono‐ and polyfunctionalized derivatives with azo, nitro, and peroxo explosophoric substituents. The novel azo and peroxo derivatives of these Platonic solid hydrocarbons are likely to be local minima on their respective potential energy surfaces, suggesting these compounds may be priority synthetic targets. The high, mass normalized gas phase enthalpies of formation for both the tetrahedranes and cubanes exceed those of well‐established primary (mercury fulminate and lead azide) and secondary (RDX and HMX) explosives by up to an order of magnitude. Other known (TNT, HMX, CL‐20, octanitrocubane) or proposed (aminonitroalkanes and acetylenes, nitroboranes) high energy materials generally have substantially less favorable mass normalized gas phase enthalpies of decomposition than the most promising tetrahedrane or cubane derivatives presented herein.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePropellants Explosives PyrotechnicsSame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207