Tuning Spin-States of Carbynes and Silylynes: A Long Jump with One Leg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The challenge motivating this paper is to induce, by chemical substitution, a silylyne, SiR, or a congeneric carbyne, CR, to adopt the high-spin quartet rather than the low-spin doublet as its ground state. The difficulty is seen in the preference for the doublet of the parent SiH (doublet-quartet energy difference ∼39 kcal/mol, favoring the doublet) or CH (∼17 kcal/mol). Strategies for having high-spin ground state parallel those for silylenes and carbenes: greater electropositivity (σ-donation) and π-acceptance of the single substituent favor the high-spin state. The electronegativity trend can be understood from an ions in molecules way of thinking already present in the literature in the works of Boldyrev and Simons, and of Mavridis and Harrison; i.e., the quartet ground state spin of some CR/SiR species is largely determined by the ground state spin of C(-)/Si(-). In this study, we provide a diabatization analysis that solidly confirms the ions in molecules picture and explains the difference in the equilibrium internuclear distances for the two spin states. In general, electronegativity dominates the ordering of spin states. π-Acceptors also help to lower the quartet state energy of the many carbynes (silylynes) examined, whose range of doublet-quartet differences calculated is impressive, 120 (100) kcal/mol. The qualitative understanding gained leads to the prediction of some quartet-ground state carbynes (CMgH, CAlH2, CZnH, CSiH3, CSiF3, etc.) and a smaller number of silylynes (SiMgH, SiMgF, SiBeH, etc.). A beginning is made on the energetics of approach geometries of the fragments in the highly exoergic dimerization of CH to acetylene; it should proceed for the ground state doublet CH through C2h-like trajectories, with no activation energy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".