Cooperativity between hydrogen bonds and beryllium bonds in (H2O)nBeX2 (n = 1–3, X = H, F) complexes. A new perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interaction of BeX(2) (X = H, F) with water molecules has been analyzed at the B3LYP/6-311+G(3df,2p)//B3LYP/6-311+G(d,p) level of theory. The formation of strong beryllium bonds between water molecules and the BeX(2) derivative triggers significant electron density redistribution within the whole system, resulting in significant changes in the proton donor and proton acceptor capacity of the water molecules involved. Hence, significant cooperative and anti-cooperative effects are present, explaining why there is no case in which the global minimum corresponds to a tetracoordinated beryllium atom. In fact, the most stable clusters can be viewed as the result of the attachment of BeX(2) to the water trimer and the water dimer, respectively, and not as the result of the solvation of the BeX(2) molecule. We have also shown that the decomposition of the interaction energy into atomic components is a reliable quantitative tool to describe all the closed-shell interactions present in the clusters investigated herein, namely hydrogen bonds, beryllium bonds and dihydrogen bonds. Indeed, we have shown that the changes in the atomic energy components are correlated with the changes in the strength of these interactions, and they provide a quantitative measure of cooperative effects directly in terms of energies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".