MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011618696 · doi:10.1063/1.3578177

Spectroscopic observation and structure of CS2 dimer

2011· article· en· W2011618696 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Rezaei, J. Norooz Oliaee, N. Moazzen‐Ahmadi, A. R. W. McKellar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsSteacie Institute for Molecular SciencesUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDimerIntermolecular forceChemistryMoleculeMolecular physicsCrystallographyAtomic physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infrared spectra of the CS(2) dimer are observed in the region of the CS(2) ν(3) fundamental band (∼1535 cm(-1)) using a tunable diode laser spectrometer. The weakly bound complex is formed in a pulsed supersonic slit-jet expansion of a dilute gas mixture of carbon disulfide in helium. Contrary to the planar slipped-parallel geometry previously observed for (CO(2))(2), (N(2)O)(2), and (OCS)(2), the CS(2) dimer exhibits a cross-shaped structure with D(2d) symmetry. Two bands were observed and analyzed: the fundamental (C-S asymmetric stretch) and a combination involving this mode plus an intermolecular vibration. In both cases, the rotational structure corresponds to a perpendicular (ΔK = ±1) band of a symmetric rotor molecule. The intermolecular center of mass separation (C-C distance) is determined to be 3.539(7) Å. Thanks to symmetry, this is the only parameter required to characterize the structure, if the monomer geometry is assumed to remain unchanged in the dimer. From the band centers of the fundamental and combination band an intermolecular frequency of 10.96 cm(-1) is obtained, which we assign as the torsional bending mode. This constitutes the first high resolution spectroscopic investigation of CS(2) dimer.

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 score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations35
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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