MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078649347 · doi:10.1021/jp9938617

Density Functional Theory Based Model Calculations for Accurate Bond Dissociation Enthalpies. 2. Studies of X−X and X−Y (X, Y = C, N, O, S, Halogen) Bonds

2000· article· en· W2078649347 on OpenAlexaff
Gino A. DiLabio, Derek A. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFree Radicals and Antioxidants
Canadian institutionsSteacie Institute for Molecular SciencesCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBond-dissociation energyChemistryHalogenDissociation (chemistry)Density functional theoryHydrogen bondHalogen bondPhysical chemistryComputational chemistryMoleculeHydrogen atomThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryGroup (periodic table)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bond dissociation enthalpies for a set of 30 compounds containing X−Y (X, Y = C, N, O, S, halogen) bonds are computed using density functional theory based model approaches with the B3P86 functional. These types of bonds were chosen because of their particular importance in free radical organic and bio-organic chemistry, specifically redox chemistry and atom transfer reactions. A series of test calculations on hydrogen peroxide, propane, and methyl chloride led to the choice of the 6-311G(d,p) basis set for optimum performance in terms of speed and accuracy. Three models are defined and tested. The lowest level model, which is capable of treating systems containing more than 30 non-hydrogen atoms, predicts bond dissociation enthalpies with a mean absolute deviation of 2.38 kcal/mol relative to experiment. For a subset of 21 molecules, the two higher-level models predict results with mean absolute deviations of 1.88 and 2.19 kcal/mol relative to experiment. Test calculations on X−H bond energetics indicate that two separate approaches are required for the accurate treatment of both X−Y and X−H bonds.

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 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 score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

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

Citations67
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicFree Radicals and AntioxidantsFrench-language works237,207