Δ(ΔS<sup>‡</sup>) and Δ(ΔS) for the Competing Bond Cleavage Reactions in (CH<sub>3</sub>CN)(ROH)H<sup>+</sup>[R = CH<sub>3</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>5</sub>, C<sub>3</sub>H<sub>7</sub>, (CH<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub>CH]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microcanonical variational transition-state theory was used to determine the entropies of activation for hydrogen-bond cleavage reactions leading to CH(3)CN + ROH(2)(+) in a series of acetonitrile-alcohol proton-bound pairs (CH(3)CN)(ROH)H(+) (where R = CH(3), CH(3)CH(2), CH(3)CH(2)CH(2), and (CH(3))(2)CH). In each case, the dissociation potential surface was modelled at the MP2/6-31 + G(d) level of theory. The dissociating configurations having the minimum sums-of-states were identified in each case and the resulting entropies of activation were calculated. Combined with previous work on the competing reaction leading to CH(3)CNH(+) + ROH, the results permitted the determination of the Delta(DeltaS) in each proton-bound pair. For the (CH(3)CN)(CH(3)OH)H(+) and (CH(3)CN)(CH(3)CH(2)OH)H(+) proton-bound pairs, the entropies of activation for the two dissociating channels are essentially the same [i.e., Delta(DeltaS) = 0], while Delta(DeltaS) for the propanol-containing pairs ranged between 40 and 45 J K(-1) mol(-1). The latter non-zero values are due to a combination of the location of the dividing surface in each dissociation and the rapidity with the frequencies of the vanishing vibrational modes go to zero as they are converted to product translations and rotations during the dissociation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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".