Differences in the Abilities to Mechanically Eliminate Activation Energies for Unimolecular and Bimolecular Reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanochemistry, i.e. the application of forces, F, at the molecular level, has attracted significant interest as a means of controlling chemical reactions. The present study uses quantum chemical calculations to explore the abilities to mechanically eliminate activation energies, ΔE(‡), for unimolecular and bimolecular reactions. The results demonstrate that ΔE(‡) can be eliminated for unimolecular reactions by applying sufficiently large F along directions that move the reactant and/or transition state (TS) structures parallel to the zero-F reaction coordinate, S0. In contrast, eliminating ΔE(‡) for bimolecular reactions requires the reactant to undergo a force-induced shift parallel to S0 irrespective of changes in the TS. Meeting this requirement depends upon the coupling between F and S0 in the reactant. The insights regarding the differences in eliminating ΔE(‡) for unimolecular and bimolecular reactions, and the requirements for eliminating ΔE(‡), may be useful in practical efforts to control reactions mechanochemically.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".