Theoretical study of H bonds of HArF and HF with isoelectronic systems N<sub>2</sub>, CO, and BF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The H bonds of HArF and HF with N2, CO, and BF were studied at the MP2(full)/6-311++G(2d, 2p) level. The results show that only the complexes WY···HArF (WY = N2, OC) and WY···HF (WY = N2, OC, FB) are stable, the H-bonding WY···HArF leads to contraction of the HAr bond with a concomitant frequency blue shift, but the H-bonding WY···HF causes the HF bond to elongate with a frequency red shift. A quantity P is defined to measure polarization of the HX bond; the H bonding causes the P value of the HX bond (X = Ar, F) to increase. The HX bond length change and frequency shift in the H-bonding WY···HArF and WY···HF are mainly caused by intermolecular hyperconjugation, n(Y) → σ*(HX) (X = Ar, F), where electrostatic interaction has only a small contribution. In HArF, the strong intramolecular hyperconjugation, n(F) → σ*(HAr), can adjust electron density on σ*(HAr); upon formation of H bonding, the HAr stretching frequency blue shift is caused by a decrease of intramolecular hyperconjugation and an increase of the s character of the Ar hybrid in the HAr bond, induced by the intermolecular hyperconjugation. In the H bonds of HF without intramolecular hyperconjugation, the intermolecular hyperconjugation, n(Y) → σ*(HF), leads to a red shift of the HF bond, although there is also large rehybridization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".