MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070553904 · doi:10.1063/1.4739928

Effect of small cage guests on hydrogen bonding of tetrahydrofuran in binary structure II clathrate hydrates

2012· article· en· W2070553904 on OpenAlexaff
Saman Alavi, John A. Ripmeester

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsSteacie Institute for Molecular Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetrahydrofuranClathrate hydrateHydrogen bondHydrateChemistryIntermolecular forceMoleculeCrystallographyCrystal structureMolecular dynamicsChemical physicsComputational chemistryOrganic chemistrySolvent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular dynamics simulations of the pure structure II tetrahydrofuran clathrate hydrate and binary structure II tetrahydrofuran clathrate hydrate with CO(2), CH(4), H(2)S, and Xe small cage guests are performed to study the effect of the shape, size, and intermolecular forces of the small cages guests on the structure and dynamics of the hydrate. The simulations show that the number and nature of the guest in the small cage affects the probability of hydrogen bonding of the tetrahydrofuran guest with the large cage water molecules. The effect on hydrogen bonding of tetrahydrofuran occurs despite the fact that the guests in the small cage do not themselves form hydrogen bonds with water. These results indicate that nearest neighbour guest-guest interactions (mediated through the water lattice framework) can affect the clathrate structure and stability. The implications of these subtle small guest effects on clathrate hydrate stability 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations78
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207