Simulation of the Resonance Raman Spectra for 5-Halogenated (F, Cl, and Br) Uracils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resonance Raman spectra of the 5-halogenated (F, Cl, and Br) uracils are simulated via the Herzberg-Teller (HT) short-time dynamics formalism. The gradient of the S1 excited state is computed at the CAMB3LYP/aug-cc-pVTZ level of theory in the conductor-like polarizable continuum model for water (C-PCM, H2O), based on the equilibrium geometry determined using PBE0/aug-cc-pVTZ in H2O (C-PCM). The simulated resonance Raman spectra show good agreement with the experimental spectra in terms of both peak positions and intensities. The differences between the resonance Raman spectra of the three 5-halogenated uracils, caused by the effect of halogen substitution, are examined in terms of ground-state normal-mode eigenvectors and excited-state Cartesian gradients, according to the HT formalism. The differences in the normal-mode eigenvectors and excited-state Cartesian gradients between 5-fluorouracil and 5-chlorouracil are used to interpret the dissimilarity between their resonance Raman spectra. Meanwhile, the similarity between the spectra of 5-chlorouracil and 5-bromouracil is explained by the correspondence between their normal modes and excited-state gradients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".