MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050358874 · doi:10.1021/jp0012247

Many-Body Effects in Systems of Peptide Hydrogen-Bonded Networks and Their Contributions to Ligand Binding:  A Comparison of the Performances of DFT and Polarizable Molecular Mechanics

2000· article· en· W2050358874 on OpenAlexaff
Hong Guo, Nohad Gresh, Bernárd P. Roques, Dennis R. Salahub

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersRégion NormandieCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsSolvationPolarizable continuum modelCooperativityComputational chemistryChemistryDensity functional theoryImplicit solvationMolecular mechanicsAb initioFormateSolvent modelsPolarizabilityBinding energyMoleculeThermodynamicsMolecular dynamicsPhysicsAtomic physicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compute the stabilization energies of the complexes formed between formate or water and a linear array of n = 2−5 N -methylformamide (NMF) molecules. We perform density functional theory (DFT), ab initio SCF and MP2, and SIBFA molecular mechanics computations. A very significant amount of cooperativity is found by DFT in the formate--(NMF) n complexes, amounting to −17 kcal/mol with n = 5. The SIBFA computations with fixed internal geometries for the monomers recover up to 80% of the DFT values. Single-point SCF/MP2 computations at the SIBFA-optimized geometries give binding energies and cooperativities very close to the SIBFA values. Solvation effects as represented by a continuum reaction field procedure are found to affect cooperativity to a modest extent. The implications for oligopeptides are discussed.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations95
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207