MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331538808 · doi:10.1021/jp3076673

Synchrotron-Based Far-Infrared Spectroscopic Investigation and ab Initio Calculations of 3-Oxetanone: Observation and Analysis of the ν<sub>7</sub> Band and the Coriolis Coupled ν<sub>16</sub> and ν<sub>20</sub> Bands

2012· article· en· W2331538808 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ziqiu Chen, Jennifer van Wijngaarden

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Laser Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfraredAb initioSynchrotronFar infraredAb initio quantum chemistry methodsInfrared spectroscopyAtomic physicsSynchrotron radiationPhysicsMaterials scienceOpticsMoleculeQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rotationally resolved vibrational spectra of the four-membered heterocycle 3-oxetanone (c-C(3)H(4)O(2)) have been investigated in the 360-720 cm(-1) region with a resolution of 0.000 959 cm(-1) using synchrotron radiation from the Canadian Light Source. The observed bands correspond to motions best described as C═O deformation out-of-plane (ν(20)) at 399.6 cm(-1), C═O deformation in-plane (ν(16)) at 448.2 cm(-1), and the ring deformation (ν(7)) at 685.0 cm(-1). Infrared ground state combination differences along with previously reported pure rotational transitions were used to obtain the ground state spectroscopic parameters. Band centers, rotational and centrifugal distortion constants for the ν(7), ν(16), and ν(20) vibrational excited states were accurately determined by fitting a total of 10,319 assigned rovibrational transitions in a global analysis. The two adjacent carbonyl deformation bands, ν(16) and ν(20), were found to be mutually perturbed through a first-order a-type Coriolis interaction which was accounted for in the multiband analysis. The band centers agree within 3% of the ab initio estimates using DFT theory.

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)0.001
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicSpectroscopy and Laser ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207