MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097513163 · doi:10.1142/s1088424614500400

Maple™-assisted calculations of the J-integral: a key parameter for the understanding of excited state energy transfer in porphyrins and other chromophores

2014· article· en· W2097513163 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Langlois, Pierre D. Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Porphyrins and Phthalocyanines · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMapleChemistryExcited stateChromophoreOrbital overlapYield (engineering)Representation (politics)Energy transferState (computer science)Computational chemistryMoleculeAtomic physicsChemical physicsPhotochemistryThermodynamicsPhysicsComputer scienceAlgorithmOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spectral overlap between the emission of a donor molecule and the absorption of an acceptor molecule, quantifiable using the J-integral calculation, is a parameter of extreme importance when studying the excited state energy transfer by either the Főrster or Dexter mechanism. Despite its extreme importance in both mechanisms, it is often misinterpreted, approximated or incorrectly calculated. The calculation of the J-integral is not trivial especially when one wishes to carry out the calculation on measured spectroscopic data. A detailed description for the correct calculation of the J-integral is herein reported and presents a Maple™ assisted template that is capable of performing this calculation in the two different energy scales (nm and cm -1 ) to yield the value of the J-integral in given units. Specific examples using porphyrin-containing compounds are provided. This Maple™ program is flexible and can be easily adapted to the needs of a researcher. A call for the standardization of the calculation of the J-integral for the facile comparison with other overlap integrals found in the literature is made.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Porphyrins and PhthalocyaninesSame topicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207