Equilibrium geometry, vibrational frequencies, and heat of formation of HOBr, HBrO<sub>2</sub>, and HBrO<sub>3</sub> isomers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The equilibrium geometries, vibrational frequencies, heat capacity, and heat of formation for compounds of general formula HBrO x were calculated by DFT (BP and pBP methods) with DN* and DN** numerical basis sets. The comparison of our HOBr calculated results with the HOBr experimental values points out that the BP and pBP methods are as good as other ab initio and DFT methods related in the literature employing extended basis sets. The calculated HBrO x total energy and heat of formation values, at 0 and 298.15 K, present the following order: HOBr < HBrO; HOOBr < HOBrO < HBrO 2 ; HOOOBr < HOBrO 2 < HOOBrO < HBrO 3 . The HBrO x heat of formation was calculated using isodesmic and homodesmic reactions and the results show that, in general, the use of these reactions gives similar results.Key words: HOBr, HBrO 2 , HBrO 3 , DFT, numerical basis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".