MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020229860 · doi:10.1021/jp055856a

Gold Cluster Carbonyls:  Vibrational Spectroscopy of the Anions and the Effects of Cluster Size, Charge, and Coverage on the CO Stretching Frequency

2005· article· en· W2020229860 on OpenAlexaff
André Fielicke, Gert von Helden, Gerard Meijer, Benoît Simard, D. M. Rayner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsSteacie Institute for Molecular Sciences
FundersStichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie
KeywordsChemistryCluster (spacecraft)Dissociation (chemistry)Gold clusterSpectroscopyInfrared spectroscopyCationic polymerizationMolecular vibrationCluster sizeChemical physicsPhotochemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)CrystallographyPhysical chemistryComputational chemistryDensity functional theoryMoleculeElectronic structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the vibrational spectra of the carbonyl complexes of anionic gold clusters in the range of the CO stretching frequency as measured in the gas phase using IR multiple photon dissociation spectroscopy. The investigated complexes contain between 3 and 14 Au atoms and up to 7 CO ligands. Special attention is given to the complexes that exhibit saturation CO coverage as well as to the monocarbonyl species. In conjunction with data from the corresponding cationic complexes we quantify how the CO stretching frequency varies with the charge state of the gold cluster. Our results provide a size- and charge-dependent basis to interpret values of the CO stretching frequency measured for CO on deposited gold clusters in terms of the charge states of the clusters.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations111
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207