Changing Weak Halogen Bonds into Strong Ones through Cooperativity with Beryllium Bonds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mutual interaction between beryllium bonds and halogen bonds within H2Be···FCl···Base complexes, where Base includes a wide set of N- and O-containing Lewis bases, has been studied at the M06-2X/6-31+G(d,p) level of theory. The reliability of this theoretical model was assessed by comparison with ab initio CCSD/aug-cc-pVTZ reference calculations. Cooperative effects were investigated within the framework of the atoms in molecules theory (AIM) by analyzing the topology of the electron density and the changes in the atomic energy components. The decomposition of the total stabilization energy into atomic components is found to be a very reliable tool to describe halogen bond interactions. Both the topological analysis of the electron density and the changes in the atomic energy components of the binding energy show the existence of strong cooperative effects between beryllium and halogen bonds, which are in some cases very intense. In general, there is a correlation between the intrinsic basicity of the Lewis base participating in the halogen bond and the resulting cooperativity in the sense that the stronger the base, the larger the cooperative effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".