MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048435822 · doi:10.1021/ic4015338

Cation–Cation Interactions in [(UO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>2</sub>(OH)<sub><i>n</i></sub>]<sup>4–<i>n</i></sup> Complexes

2013· article· en· W2048435822 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel O. Odoh, Niranjan Govind, Georg Schreckenbach, Wibe A. de Jong

Bibliographic record

VenueInorganic Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryUranylDensity functional theoryCrystallographyGround stateUraniumDegenerate energy levelsCrystal structureComputational chemistryAtomic physicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structures and bonding of gas-phase [(UO2)2(OH)n](4-n) (n = 2-6) complexes have been studied using density functional theory (DFT), MP2, and CCSD(T) methods with particular emphasis on ground state structures featuring cation-cation interactions (CCIs) between the uranyl groups. An interesting trend is observed in the stabilities of members of this series of complexes. The structures of [(UO2)2(OH)2](2+), [(UO2)2(OH)4], and [(UO2)2(OH)6](2-) featuring CCIs are found at higher energies (by 3-27 kcal/mol) in comparison to their conventional μ2-dihydroxo structures. In contrast, the CCI structures of [(UO2)2(OH)3](+) and [(UO2)2(OH)5](-) are respectively degenerate with and lower in energy than the structures with the μ2-dihydroxo format. The origin of this trend lies in the symmetry-based need to balance the coordination numbers and effective atomic charges of each uranium center. The calculated IR vibrational frequencies provide signature probes that can be used in differentiating the low-energy structures and in experimentally confirming the existence of the structures featuring CCIs.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInorganic ChemistrySame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207