DFT-ONIOM study of the dopamine–β-CD complex: NBO and AIM analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we conducted a systematic search of the minimum energy of a dopamine–β-cyclodextrin complex via different ONIOM approaches using both mixed (DFT-HF) and nonmixed (DFT-DFT) combinations. Different density functionals were employed: B3LYP, MPW1PW91, M05-2X, M06-2X, and ωB97X-D. Two different basis sets were used on the dopamine–β-cyclodextrin complex; a lower basis set (3-21G*) is used on β-cyclodextrin and a higher basis set (6-31G(d)) is used on dopamine. To fulfill this task, complexation and deformation energies were determined. The relative performance of these functionals was compared with that obtained with the DFT method at the M06-2X/6-31G(d) level that is chosen as a reference method. Although we did not clearly establish an assessment of the relative performance of these density functionals, the efficacy of the ONIOM combination (DFT-HF) is shown compared with a nonmixed ONIOM combination (DFT-DFT). The intermolecular hydrogen bond interactions of the complex obtained with the full M06-2X/6-31G(d) have been analyzed with the atoms-in-molecules and natural bond rrbital methodologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".