MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065751668 · doi:10.1002/qua.963

Prediction of the existence of radon carbonyl: RnCO

2002· article· en· W2065751668 on OpenAlexaff
Gulzari Malli

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Quantum Chemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicInorganic Fluorides and Related Compounds
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNuclear PhysicsNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAntibonding molecular orbitalChemistryWave functionBond-dissociation energyDissociation (chemistry)Ionization energyAtomic physicsRelativistic quantum chemistryAb initioPopulationMulliken population analysisAb initio quantum chemistry methodsIonIonizationElectronComputational chemistryPhysicsPhysical chemistryMoleculeDensity functional theoryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Our ab initio all‐electron relativistic Dirac–Fock (DF) and nonrelativistic (NR) Hartree–Fock (HF) limit self‐consistent field molecular calculations predict the existence of radon carbonyl RnCO with the predicted dissociation energy of 4.81 and 4.22 eV, respectively. The calculations were performed for the linear RnCO at Rn–C and C–O bond distances of 2.38 and 1.12 Å, respectively. The relativistic DF dissociation (atomization) energy of the cation RnCO + is, however, calculated to be 6.31 eV, indicating thereby that the highest occupied molecular spinor of RnCO is an antibonding molecular spinor. The ionization potential of RnCO calculated with our relativistic DF and NR HF wavefunctions is 7.73 and 7.99 eV, respectively. Mulliken population analysis of our relativistic DF (NR HF) wavefunction for RnCO yields population on C and O of −0.26 and +0.31 (−0.39 and −0.08), respectively. The bond dissociation energy of Rn–CO is calculated to be ∼28 kcal/mol. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Quantum Chem, 2002

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Quantum ChemistrySame topicInorganic Fluorides and Related CompoundsFrench-language works237,207