MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074384991 · doi:10.1063/1.2181974

Isotope quantum effects in water around the freezing point

2006· article· en· W2074384991 on OpenAlexaff
R. Hart, Qiang Mei, Chris J. Benmore, Jöerg C. Neuefeind, John F. Turner, Michelle Dolgos, Bruno Tomberli, P. A. Egelstaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsochoric processKinetic isotope effectIsothermal processChemistryThermodynamicsQuantumIsotopeDiffractionAtmospheric temperature rangeMolecular physicsAtomic physicsDeuteriumPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have measured the difference in electronic structure factors between liquid H(2)O and D(2)O at temperatures of 268 and 273 K with high energy x-ray diffraction. These are compared to our previously published data measured from 279 to 318 K. We find that the total structural isotope effect increases by a factor of 3.5 over the entire range, as the temperature is decreased. Structural isochoric temperature differential and isothermal density differential functions have been used to compare these data to a thermodynamic model based upon a simple offset in the state function. The model works well in describing the magnitude of the structural differences above approximately 310 K, but fails at lower temperatures. The experimental results are discussed in light of several quantum molecular dynamics simulations and are in good qualitative agreement with recent temperature dependent, rotationally quantized rigid molecule simulations.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamicsFrench-language works237,207