MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025074051 · doi:10.1002/mas.20230

Neutral and ion thermochemistry: Its present status and significance

2009· article· en· W2025074051 on OpenAlexaff
Christiane Aubry

Bibliographic record

VenueMass Spectrometry Reviews · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Thermodynamics and Molecular Structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryThermochemistryIonStandard enthalpy of formationPolyatomic ionHydrogen atomRadicalMoleculeComputational chemistryAdditive functionIonizationIonization energyRange (aeronautics)Electron ionizationGas phaseGroup (periodic table)Physical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This short account outlines the sources of thermochemical data that are important for gas phase ion chemistry. It describes some of the relationships that have been identified for the empirical estimation of enthalpies among neutral molecules, free radicals, and odd and even electron ions. For neutral species, the additivity principle works well and this has been developed to cover a very wide range of structures and isomers. Ionization energies of homologous species depend inversely on molecular size, allowing estimates to be made for missing members. For ions, the effect of a group substitution (such as replacing a hydrogen atom by, e.g., a methyl or hydroxyl group) can easily be estimated, but such results are strongly dependent upon the position of the charge site, relative to that of the substitution. Special emphasis is given to the reliability of data collections and simple directions are provided as to how critically to assess and identify less-than-satisfactory values.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMass Spectrometry ReviewsSame topicChemical Thermodynamics and Molecular StructureFrench-language works237,207