MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018382407 · doi:10.1021/ic001444z

A Combined Quantum Mechanical and Statistical Mechanical Study of the Equilibrium of Trimethylaluminum (TMA) and Oligomers of (AlOCH<sub>3</sub>)<i><sub>n</sub></i> Found in Methylaluminoxane (MAO) Solution

2001· article· en· W2018382407 on OpenAlexafffund
Eva Zurek, Tom Ziegler

Bibliographic record

VenueInorganic Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMethylaluminoxaneChemistryDensity functional theoryCrystallographyGibbs free energyQuantum chemistryPhysical chemistryComputational chemistryThermodynamicsCrystal structureOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Density Functional Theory (DFT) has been used to calculate the energies of over 30 different structures with the general formula (AlOMe)(n).(AlMe(3))(m) where n ranges from 6 to 13 and m ranges between 1 and 4, depending upon the structure of the parent (AlOMe)(n) cage. The way in which TMA (trimethylaluminum) bonds to MAO (methylaluminoxane) has been determined as well as the location of the acidic sites present in MAO caged structures. Topological arguments have been used to show that TMA does not bind to MAO cages where n = 12 or n > or = 14. The ADF energies in conjunction with frequency calculations based on molecular mechanics have been used to estimate the finite temperature enthalpies, entropies, and free energies of the TMA containing MAO structures. Using the Gibbs free energies found for pure MAO structures calculated in a previous work, in conjunction with the free energies of TMA containing MAO structures obtained in the present study, it was possible to determine the percent abundance of each TMA containing MAO within the temperature range of 198.15 K-598.15 K. We have found that very little TMA is actually bound to MAO. The Me/Al ratio on the MAO cages is determined as being approximately 1.00, 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 at 198, 298, 398, and 598 K, respectively. Moreover, the percentage of Al found as TMA has been calculated as being 0.21%, 0.62%, 1.05%, and 1.76% and the average unit formulas of (AlOMe)(18.08).(TMA)(0.04), (AlOMe)(17.04).(TMA)(0.11), (AlOMe)(15.72).(TMA)(0.17), and (AlOMe)(14.62).(TMA)(0.26) have been determined at the aforementioned temperatures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations64
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInorganic ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207