MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005274401 · doi:10.1021/jp100158h

Modeling Solvatochromic Shifts Using the Orbital-Free Embedding Potential at Statistically Mechanically Averaged Solvent Density

2010· article· en· W2005274401 on OpenAlexaff
Jakub W. Kamiński, Sergey Gusarov, Tomasz A. Wesołowski, Andriy Kovalenko

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolvatochromismSolvationEmbeddingChromophoreDensity functional theoryMolecular orbitalChemistrySolventMoleculeChemical physicsComputational chemistrySolvent effectsMolecular physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsOrganic chemistryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The correspondence between the exact embedding potential and the pair of the electron densities--that of the embedded molecule and that of its environment [Wesolowski and Warshel, J. Phys. Chem. 1993, 97, 8050]--is used to generate the average embedding potential and to subsequently calculate the solvatochromic shifts in a number of organic chromophores in solvents of various polarities. The averaged embedding potential is evaluated at a fictitious electron density of the solvent, which is obtained by means of "dressing up" with electrons the classical site distributions derived from the statistical-mechanical, 3D molecular theory of solvation (aka 3D-RISM method) [Kovalenko In Molecular Theory of Solvation; Hirata, Ed.; Understanding Chemical Reactivity; 2003, Vol 24], self-consistently coupled with the electronic structure of the solute. The proposed approach to modeling solvatochromic shifts can be situated between the implicit and explicit type of models for the solvent. Numerical examples are given for the lowest-lying n --> pi* and pi --> pi* excitations.

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 score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations92
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207