MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110154521 · doi:10.1139/v09-097

Neptunium(VII) in high-ionic-strength alkaline solutions — [NpO <sub>2</sub> (OH) <sub>4</sub> ] <sup>1–</sup> or [NpO <sub>4</sub> (OH) <sub>2</sub> ] <sup>3–</sup> ?

2009· article· en· W2110154521 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John E. C. Wren, Georg Schreckenbach

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryNeptuniumActinideDensity functional theoryChemical shiftIonic bondingIonic strengthUranylBond lengthUraniumChemical bondPhysical chemistryCrystallographyInorganic chemistryComputational chemistryIonCrystal structureAqueous solutionNuclear physicsPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relativistic density functional theory (ZORA-PBE, COSMO solvation) is used to address the title question, based on comparison with recent experimental data ( 1 ). Structural data (bond lengths), vibrational frequencies, and 17 O NMR chemical shifts are used to prove that [NpO 4 (OH) 2 ] 3– is the predominant species in high-ionic-strength alkaline solutions of Np VII . Neptunium(VII) complexes have stronger bonds than their formally isoelectronic uranium(VI) analogues. The experimentally observed 300 ppm shift in 17 O chemical shifts between the known [UO 2 (OH) 4 ] 2– and Np VII solution is shown to be partly a function of the central metal (Np VII vs. U VI ) and not of the coordination environment (tetraoxo vs. dioxo). Comparing, for a given An (U VI or Np VII ), actinyl complexes [AnO 2 X 4 ] 2–/1– , X = Cl, F, OH, a decreasing strength of the axial actinyl bond is observed that is traced to electronic factors (equatorial π-competition).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207