MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155789264 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20678

Exploring photochemistry of 2‐(phenylazo)pyridine dye by using TDDFT/DFT methods

2011· article· en· W2155789264 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Pornthip Tongying, Suthirat Yoopensuk, Nararak Leesakul, Yuthana Tantirungrotechai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Electronics and Computer Technology CenterNational Nanotechnology CenterNaresuan University
KeywordsTime-dependent density functional theoryDensity functional theoryConical intersectionExcited statePyridinePhotochemistryChemistryIsomerizationFluorescenceGround stateComputational chemistryChemical physicsAtomic physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The non‐emissive behaviour of 2‐(phenylazo)pyridine, azpy, observed in the fluorescence experiment was explained by investigating its photoisomerisation mechanism. By using the Density Functional Theory and Time‐dependent Density Functional Theory (DFT/TDDFT) methods, the two‐dimensional potential energy surfaces in the ground state, and the first and second excited states which are relevant to the trans ‐to‐ cis isomerisation were constructed. The pathways related to the inversion, rotation and their concerted motion of the phenyl and pyridyl groups around NN bond were considered. The energy profiles depend not only on the type of pathways but also on the moving group. The concerted‐inversion pathways show the possibility of S 1 / S 2 and S 0 / S 1 conical intersections. The relaxation through such intersections should increase the non‐radiative transition rate to the extent that the compound does not emit fluorescence. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207