MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131657273 · doi:10.1002/jcc.20726

Electron affinities of heavier phosphoryl and thiophosphoryl halides APX<sub>3</sub> (A = O, S and X = Br, I)

2007· article· en· W2131657273 on OpenAlexafffund
Tao Zeng, Zahra Jamshidi, Hirotoshi Mori, Eisaku Miyoshi, Mariusz Kłobukowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaShiraz UniversityWestern Canada Research Grid
KeywordsChemistryAffinitiesDensity functional theoryComputational chemistryHalideMoleculePotential energy surfaceElectron affinity (data page)Natural bond orbitalMolecular physicsStereochemistryInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We carried out computational studies of OPX3 and SPX3 (X = Br and I) molecules and their corresponding anions using density functional theory, Møller-Plesset, and CCSD(T) methods with newly developed model core potentials (MCP). Reliabilities of the MCP were demonstrated by comparing experimental and calculated results. We computed the geometric structure, electron affinities, and electrostatic moments using systematic sequences of the dzp-, tzp-, and qzp-quality basis sets. Both C3v and Cs symmetries were assumed to ascertain that minima on the potential energy surface were found. Infrared and Raman frequencies were calculated and compared with available experimental data. Natural population analyses were performed and used to determine distribution of the extra electron in anions.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational ChemistrySame topicCrystallography and molecular interactionsFrench-language works237,207