MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019921721 · doi:10.1063/1.3257687

Probing C–O bond activation on gas-phase transition metal clusters: Infrared multiple photon dissociation spectroscopy of Fe, Ru, Re, and W cluster CO complexes

2009· article· en· W2019921721 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan T. Lyon, Philipp Gruene, André Fielicke, Gerard Meijer, D. M. Rayner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsSteacie Institute for Molecular Sciences
FundersStichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der MaterieDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftTechnische Universität BerlinAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsRutheniumRheniumCarbon monoxideChemistryDissociation (chemistry)PhotochemistryTransition metalInfrared spectroscopyCluster (spacecraft)Binding energySpectroscopyMoleculeMetal carbonylMetalCrystallographyInorganic chemistryPhysical chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The binding of carbon monoxide to iron, ruthenium, rhenium, and tungsten clusters is studied by means of infrared multiple photon dissociation spectroscopy. The CO stretching mode is used to probe the interaction of the CO molecule with the metal clusters and thereby the activation of the C-O bond. CO is found to adsorb molecularly to atop positions on iron clusters. On ruthenium and rhenium clusters it also binds molecularly. In the case of ruthenium, binding is predominantly to atop sites, however higher coordinated CO binding is also observed for both metals and becomes prevalent for rhenium clusters containing more than nine atoms. Tungsten clusters exhibit a clear size dependence for molecular versus dissociative CO binding. This behavior denotes the crossover to the purely dissociative CO binding on the earlier transition metals such as tantalum.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207