Geometrical and vibrational DFT studies of HOBr·(H<sub>2</sub>O)<i><sub>n</sub></i> clusters (<i>n</i> = 14)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geometrical structures and the vibrational spectra of the HOBr·(H2O)n clusters (n = 14) have been calculated at the DFT level of theory, using the pBP method and the DN* and DN** numerical basis sets. The results showed that the interaction involving the H of the HOBr and the O of the water molecule represent the preferred arrangements for these hydrated compounds. Both HOBr·H2O and HOBr·(H2O)2 clusters presented stable structures with syn and anti conformations, the syn being the most stable. The HOBr·(H2O)3 and the HOBr·(H2O)4 clusters have presented stable cyclic structures. In the HOBr·H2O and HOBr·(H2O)2 clusters, low-frequency stretching values could be assigned to hydrogen bonds, but the same could not be done so clearly for the HOBr·(H2O)3 and the HOBr·(H2O)4 cyclic clusters. The binding energies were also determinated for these HOBr hydrated clusters, showing that the addition of a water molecule to the HOBr·H2O and HOBr·(H2O)2 clusters increases the binding energy by approximately 4 kcal mol1, while the addition of a water molecule to the HOBr·(H2O)3 cluster decreases this value by 4 kcal mol1.Key words: DFT, numerical basis, HOBr·(H2O)n, clusters.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".