Interaction Energy of a Water Molecule with a Single-Layer Graphitic Surface Modeled by Hydrogen- and Fluorine-Terminated Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In ab initio calculations a finite graphitic cluster model is often used to approximate the interaction energy of a water molecule with an infinite single-layer graphitic surface (graphene). In previous studies, the graphitic cluster model is a collection of fused benzene rings terminated by hydrogen atoms. In this study, the effect of using fluorine instead of hydrogen atoms for terminating the cluster model is examined to clarify the role of the boundary. The interaction energy of a water molecule with the graphitic cluster was computed using ab initio methods at the MP2 level of theory and with the 6-31G(d = 0.25) basis set. The interaction energy of a water molecule with graphene is estimated by extrapolation of two series of increasing size graphitic cluster models (C(6n2)H(6n) and C(6n2)F(6n), n = 1-3). Two fixed orientations of water molecule are considered: (a) both hydrogen atoms of water pointing toward the cluster (mode A) and (b) both hydrogen atoms of water pointing away from the cluster (mode B). The interaction energies for water mode A are found to be -2.39 and -2.49 kcal/mol for C(6n2)H(6n) and C(6n2)F(6n) cluster models, respectively. For water mode B, the interaction energies are -2.32 and -2.44 kcal/mol for C(6n2)H(6n) and C(6n2)F(6n) cluster models, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".