Structures of neutral and anionic Au16 clusters revisited
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the density functional theory and generalized gradient approximation for exchange and correlation potential, we have performed an extensive search to obtain the ground state geometries of both neutral and anionic Au(16) cluster by considering over 200 low lying isomers. For the neutral Au(16) cluster we found a new T(d) compact structure to be the lowest energy configuration, which is nearly degenerate in total energy with the previously reported C(s) and C(2v) noncage structures. While the Au(16) (-) cluster, in agreement with previous calculations, is found to have a T(d) hollow cage structure, an isomer with a planar structure is found to be lower in energy. The photoelectron spectra from all the nine lowest energy isomers are calculated and compared with experiment to determine the possibility of their existence. Molecular dynamics simulations on both neutral and anionic Au(16) clusters are carried out to provide further insight into the origin and stability of these structures. Our comprehensive study allows us to answer the following questions: (1) Why are the adiabatic and vertical detachment energies of Au(16) cluster nearly identical when the lowest energy structures of the anion and the neutral are so very different? (2) How is Au(16) (-) formed? Is it born neutral and the extra electron attaches afterwards or is it born anionic and the structure evolves during the electron attachment process?
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.
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 it