MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328994044 · doi:10.1021/jz401635u

Quantifying Crystallographically Independent Optical Switching Dynamics in Ru SO<sub>2</sub> Photoisomers via Lock-and-Key Crystalline Environment

2013· article· en· W2328994044 on OpenAlexaff
S.O. Sylvester, Jacqueline M. Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLock (firearm)Key (lock)Dynamics (music)CrystallographyMaterials scienceChemistryChemical physicsOptoelectronicsComputer sciencePhysicsEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The photophysical properties associated with solid-state Ru-based SO 2 linkage photoisomerism are shown to differ with single-molecule recognition; this stands to afford superior optical resolution for data storage applications. Two compounds, [Ru(NH 3 ) 4 SO 2 X ]tosylate 2 ( X = isonicotinamide ( 1 ) and isonicotinic acid ( 2 )), yield crystal structures, each with two chemically identical but crystallographically distinct Ru-based complexes (Ru01 and Ru02) and thus two different photoisomerizable SO 2 environments. It was found that the SO 2 photoconversion fraction in each crystallographically independent complex differed by over 20% (for 1: 51.0(12) % in Ru01 and 28.6(9) % in Ru02). These photophysical differences between neighboring molecules were attributed to the larger free volume around the ground-state SO 2 in Ru01, allowing for higher photoconversion, i.e., a “lock-and-key” environment controls the photochemistry. Furthermore, the η 2 -side-S,O-bound (MS2) metastable photoisomer in Ru01 was 20 K more thermally stable in both 1 and 2; photoinduced intermolecular interactions are shown to dictate this thermal stability.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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