MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085231488 · doi:10.1063/1.3640003

Response to “Comment on ‘Isotope effects in liquid water by infrared spectroscopy. IV. No free OH groups in liquid water’” [J. Chem. Phys. 135, 117101 (2011)]

2011· article· en· W2085231488 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Joseph Ma×, Camille Chapados

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAqueous solutionChemistrySalt (chemistry)Free waterSpectral lineLiquid waterInfrared spectroscopyHeavy waterMoleculeSalt waterSodium saltAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsInorganic chemistryPhysical chemistryDeuteriumChromatographyOrganic chemistryAtomic physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The original infrared spectra in the OH stretch region that Riemenschneider and Ludwig (thereafter, RL) have obtained for pure water and aqueous salt solutions are very similar to what we have previously reported [J.-J. Max and C. Chapados, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 6803 (2001)]. In our 2010 paper, we claimed that “free” OH is not present in pure liquid water. The difference spectra from the salt solutions and pure water spectrum give small negative components situated near 3655 cm−1. Because this position is in the range where free OH groups should absorb RL assigned the negative peaks to free OH removed from pure water. That is, RL consider that pure liquid water contains free OH groups which are removed in the salt solutions. Obviously, the removal of all free OH present in pure water will produce maximum negative intensities in the difference spectra. In this response, we present unpublished difference spectra between several salt solutions and pure water where negative peaks are higher than that claimed by RL for pure water. Since this is impossible it demonstrates that the assignment proposed by RL to free OH is incorrect. The negative peaks come from the difference between large components that differ a little between salt solutions and pure water [J.-J. Max and C. Chapados, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 6803 (2001)]. Recall that the ionized salts do not absorb but perturb the surrounding water molecules.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0330.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.030

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207