MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316977371 · doi:10.1021/jp401847s

A Drude Polarizable Model for Liquid Hydrogen Sulfide

2013· article· en· W2316977371 on OpenAlexafffund
Saleh Riahi, Christopher N. Rowley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMemorial University of NewfoundlandCompute Canada
KeywordsPolarizabilityChemistryDipoleThermodynamicsDrude modelEnthalpyIntermolecular forceWater modelEnthalpy of vaporizationCharge densityLennard-Jones potentialMolecular dynamicsComputational chemistryCondensed matter physicsPhysicsMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A polarizable force field for liquid hydrogen sulfide (H2S) has been developed based on the Drude oscillator model. This force field has been designed to be analogous to the SWM4-NDP water model; the model is rigid with point charges assigned to the H and S atoms and a lone pair on the bisector of ∠HSH in the molecular plane. Positions of the lone pair and the charges have been defined such that the model has a static dipole moment of 0.98 D, equal to the experimental value. Polarizability is incorporated by a charged (Drude) particle attached to the S atom through a harmonic potential. Intermolecular nonbonded forces are included by use of a Lennard-Jones potential between S atoms. The model was parametrized to reproduce the density, enthalpy of vaporization, and dielectric constant of pure H2S at 212 K and 1 atm. The calculated density, enthalpy of vaporization, shear viscosity coefficient, and self-diffusion coefficient are in good agreement with experiment over the temperature range 212-298 K along the liquid-vapor coexistence curve of liquid H2S. The radial distribution function calculated from this model is in good agreement with experimental diffraction data and ab initio molecular dynamics simulations.

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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207