How Adsorbate Alignment Leads to Selective Reaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been much interest in the effect of adsorbate alignment in a surface reaction. Here we show its significance for an electron-induced reaction occurring along preferred axes of the asymmetric Cu(110) surface, characterized by directional copper rows. By scanning tunneling microscopy (STM), we found that the heterocyclic aromatic reagent, physisorbed meta-iodopyridine, lay with its carbon-iodine either along the rows of Cu(110), "A", or perpendicular, "P". Electron-induced dissociative attachment with the C-I bond initially along "A" gave a chemisorbed I atom and chemisorbed vertical pyridyl, singly surface-bound, whereas that with C-I along "P" gave a chemisorbed I atom and a horizontal pyridyl, doubly bound. An impulsive two-state model, involving a short-lived antibonding state of C-I, accounted for the different product surface binding in terms of closer Cu···Cu atomic spacing along "A" accommodating only one binding site of the pyridyl ring recoiling from I and wider spacing along "P" accommodating simultaneously both binding sites, N-Cu and C-Cu, in the meta-position on the recoiling pyridyl ring. STM studies combined with dynamical modeling can be seen as a way to improve understanding of the role of surface alignment in determining reactive outcomes in induced reaction at asymmetric crystalline surfaces.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".