Molecular dynamics simulation of NMR powder lineshapes of linear guests in structure I clathrate hydrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We perform molecular dynamics simulations (up to 6 ns) for the structure I clathrate hydrates of linear molecules CS, CS(2), OCS, and C(2)H(2) in large cages at different temperatures in the stability range to determine the angular distribution and dynamics of the guests in the large cages. The long axes of linear guest molecules in the oblate large structure I clathrate hydrate cages are primarily confined near the equatorial plane of the cage rather than axial regions. This non-uniform spatial distribution leads to well-known anisotropic lineshapes in the solid-state NMR spectra of the guest species. We use the dynamic distribution of guest orientations in the cages during the MD simulations at different temperatures to predict the (13)C NMR powder lineshapes of the guests in the large cages. The length of the guests and intermolecular interactions of the guests in the water cages determine the angular distribution and the mobility of the guests in the sI large cages at different temperatures. At low temperatures the range of motion of the guests in the cages are limited and this is reflected in the skew of the predicted (13)C lineshapes. As the guest molecules reach the fast motion limit at higher temperatures, the lineshapes for CS, OCS, and C(2)H(2) are predicted to have the "standard" powder lineshapes of guest molecules.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".