Density Functional Studies of Actinyl Aquo Complexes Studied Using Small-Core Effective Core Potentials and a Scalar Four-Component Relativistic Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The title compounds, [AnO(2)(H(2)O)(5)](n)(+), n = 1 or 2 and An = U, Np, and Pu, are studied using relativistic density functional theory (DFT). Three rather different relativistic methods are used, small-core effective core potentials (SC-ECP), a scalar four-component all-electron relativistic method, and the zeroeth-order regular approximation. The methods provide similar results for a variety of properties, giving confidence in their accuracy. Spin-orbit and multiplet corrections to the An(VI)/An(V) reduction potential are added in an approximate fashion but are found to be essential. Bulk solvation effects are modeled with continuum solvation models (CPCM, COSMO). These models are tested by comparing explicit (cluster), continuum, and mixed cluster/continuum solvation models as applied to various properties. The continuum solvation models are shown to accurately account for the effects of the solvent, provided that at least the first coordination sphere is included. Reoptimizing the structures in the presence of the bulk solvent is seen to be important for the equatorial bond lengths but less relevant for energetics. Explicit inclusion of waters in the second coordination sphere has a modest influence on the energetics. For the first time, free energies of solvation are calculated for all six [AnO(2)(H(2)O)(5)](n)(+) species. The calculated numbers are within the experimental error margins, and the experimental trend is reproduced correctly. By comparison of different relativistic methods, it is shown that an accurate relativistic description leads to marked improvements over the older large-core ECP (LC-ECP) method for bond lengths, vibrational frequencies, and, in particular, the An(VI)/An(V) reduction potential. Two approximate DFT methods are compared, B3LYP, a hybrid DFT method, and PBE, a generalized gradient approximation. Either method yields An(VI)/An(V) reduction potentials of comparable quality. Overall, the experimental reduction potentials are accurately reproduced by the calculations.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".