MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998785281 · doi:10.1063/1.2173233

Dissociation energy of ekaplutonium fluoride E126F: The first diatomic with molecular spinors consisting of g atomic spinors

2006· article· en· W1998785281 on OpenAlexaff
Gulzari Malli

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiatomic moleculeRelativistic quantum chemistryAtomic physicsChemistryBond-dissociation energyDissociation (chemistry)Molecular orbitalSpinorMolecular orbital theoryHartree–Fock methodAb initioAtomic orbitalPhysicsQuantum mechanicsMoleculeElectronPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our ab initio all-electron fully relativistic Dirac-Fock (DF) and nonrelativistic (NR) Hartree-Fock (HF) self-consistent field (SCF) calculations predict the superheavy diatomic ekaplutonium fluoride E126F to be bound with the calculated dissociation energy of 7.44 and 10.46 eV at the predicted E126-F bond lengths of 2.03 and 2.18 Angstroms, respectively. The antibinding effects of relativity to the dissociation energy of E126F are approximately 3 eV. The predicted dissociation energy with both our NR HF and relativistic DF SCF wave functions is fairly large and is comparable to that for very stable diatomics. This is the first case, where in a diatomic, an atom has g orbital (l = 4) occupied in its ground state electronic configuration and such superheavy diatomics would have occupied molecular spinors (orbitals) consisting of g atomic spinors (orbitals). This opens up a whole new field of chemistry where g atomic spinors (orbitals) may be involved in electronic structure and chemical bonding of systems of superheavy elements with Z> or =122.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207