MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162298997 · doi:10.1021/jp044561e

Methyl Cation Affinities of Rare Gases and Nitrogen and the Heat of Formation of Diazomethane

2005· article· en· W2162298997 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Dixon, Wibe A. de Jong, Kirk A. Peterson, Terrance B. McMahon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoupled clusterDiazomethaneChemistryValence (chemistry)AffinitiesNitrogenBasis setStandard enthalpy of formationDensity functional theoryComputational chemistryPhysical chemistryMoleculeStereochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The methyl cation affinities of the rare gases have been calculated at 0 and 298 K by using coupled cluster theory including noniterative, quasiperturbative triple excitations with the new correlation-consistent basis sets for Xe up through aug-cc-pV5Z in some cases. To achieve near chemical accuracy (+/-1 kcal/mol) in the thermodynamic properties, we add to the estimated complete basis set valence binding energies, based on frozen core coupled cluster theory energies, two corrections: (1) a core/valence correction and (2) a scalar relativistic correction. Vibrational zero-point energies were computed at the coupled cluster level of theory at the CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pVDZ level. The calculated rare gas methyl cation affinities (MCA in kcal/mol) at 298 K are the following: MCA(He) = 1.7, MCA(Ne) = 2.5, MCA(Ar) = 16.9, MCA(Kr) = 25.5, and MCA(Xe) = 36.6. Because of the importance of the MCA(N(2)) in the experimental measurements of the MCA scale, we calculated a number of quantities associated with CH(3)N(2)(+) and CH(2)N(2). The calculated values for diazomethane at 298 K are: DeltaH(f)(CH(2)N(2)) = 65.3 kcal/mol, PA(CH(2)N(2)) = 211.9 kcal/mol, and MCA(N(2)) = 43.2 kcal/mol.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207