Mechanisms of Double Proton Transfer. Theory and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An analytical two-dimensional (2D) potential-energy surface based on two equal hydrogen bonds coupled by a correlation term, recently introduced [J. Chem. Phys. 127 (2007) 174513] to describe the dynamics of double proton transfer, is reviewed and generalized. It is then applied to the evaluation of proton transfer dynamics in a number of realistic systems, namely several molecules and dimers that exhibit various degrees of correlation between the motions of the two protons. The three parameters required to generate this 2D potential are derived from electronic structure and force field calculations, such that they include implicitly the effect of coupled skeletal modes. It follows that explicit introduction of such coupled modes is not required to obtain the basic relations that define the stationary points of the 2D surface, and thereby the reaction mechanism. Based on these relations, a detailed analysis is reported of a variety of systems exhibiting double proton transfer, including, apart from previously investigated porphine and porphycene, representing weak correlation, and the formic and benzoic acid dimers, representing strong correlation, two newly investigated systems which shed light on the hitherto not represented intermediate correlation category, namely naphthazarin, and the 4-bromopyrazole 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".