MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327643321 · doi:10.1021/je100913f

Estimated Adiabatic Ionization Energies for Organic Compounds Using the Gaussian-4 (G4) and W1BD Theoretical Methods

2010· article· en· W2327643321 on OpenAlex
Sierra Rayne, Kaya Forest

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical & Engineering Data · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAdiabatic processIonization energyIonizationGaussianComputational chemistryHeteroatomMoleculeRange (aeronautics)Organic moleculesDensity functional theoryPerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)ThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryRing (chemistry)Quantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas phase (298.15 K, 101.325 kPa) adiabatic ionization energies (AIEs) were calculated for 236 organic compounds with the Gaussian-4 (G4) composite method and for 17 molecules at the W1BD level of theory. Functional group types considered span a range of mono- and polyfunctionalized halogenated, saturated and unsaturated, cyclic and acyclic, and heteroatom (N, O, S) substituted moieties without substantial conformational complexity. Excellent agreement was found using both computational methods against available experimental data. Approximately equivalent AIE prediction accuracy was observed between the G4 and the W1BD methods. For compounds with well-constrained experimental AIEs, both levels of theory provide effective chemical accuracy.

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.305 · 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