CH Stretching Overtone Spectra of Fluorine Substituted Toluenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have measured and analyzed the vapor phase CH stretching overtone spectra of 3,5-difluorotoluene, 2,3,5,6-tetrafluorotoluene, and 2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorotoluene. The aryl bands are complex due to Fermi resonance. We have used a two-level system model to analyze the Fermi resonance within the aryl bands. The aryl regions of the overtone spectra are “corrected” for Fermi resonance and interpreted as uncoupled stretching oscillators. The methyl band profiles are complex due to the coupling between CH stretching and methyl torsion. The methyl band profiles are simulated with a CH stretching methyl torsion model. The CH stretching modes are described by a harmonically coupled anharmonic oscillator local mode model, and the methyl torsion is described by a rigid rotor model. Simulation parameters are obtained from ab initio calculations with the HF/6-31G(d) method. Relative intensities of aryl and methyl contributions in the CH stretching overtone spectra in the region Δ v CH = 2−5 are measured and calculated for these molecules. We have found that the methyl bands of 3,5-difluorotoluene are very similar to corresponding bands in toluene, 4-methylpyridine, p -xylene, and m -xylene. The methyl bands of 2,3,5,6-tetrafluorotoluene and 2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorotoluene are virtually identical to those of 2,6-difluorotoluene. Thus, the main factor that determines the structure in methyl CH stretching overtone spectra of these molecules is the nature of the groups adjacent to the methyl group. The aryl bands of these molecules are primarily affected by the nearest substituents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".