Polarized continuum model study of bond dissociation energies of the O–NO<sub>2</sub> bond — A density functional theory study and natural bond order analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density functional methods (B3LYP, B3PW91, B3P86, and MPWB95) with 6–31G** basis sets and complete basis methods are employed to investigate the bond dissociation energies (BDEs) of the O–NO2 bond for seven O-nitroalcohol compounds in acetonitrile solution. B3LYP/6–31+G**, (RO)B3LYP/6–311++G(2df,2p), and B3LYP/6–311G(d,p) methods are also used. By comparing the calculated results with the experimental values, B3LYP/6–31+G** is the most accurate method to compute the reliable BDEs for the studied compounds. The substituent effects on the O–NO2 BDEs are analyzed. It is found that electron-withdrawing groups increase the BDE of the parent compound, whereas electron-donating groups decrease the BDE of the parent compound. Further, the natural bond orbital analysis shows that there exist good linear correlations between E(2) and Hammett constants, the BDE, and the difference of the second-order stabilization energies E(2) of lpO3 → BD*(O1–N1) and lpO3 → BD*(O2–N1).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".