Proton affinities of pertechnetate (TcO<sub>4</sub><sup>−</sup>) and perrhenate (ReO<sub>4</sub><sup>−</sup>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The anions pertechnetate, TcO4-, and perrhenate, ReO4-, exhibit very similar chemical and physical properties. Revealing and understanding disparities between them enhances fundamental understanding of both. Electrospray ionization generated the gas-phase proton bound dimer (TcO4-)(H+)(ReO4-). Collision induced dissociation of the dimer yielded predominantly HTcO4 and ReO4-, which according to Cooks' kinetic method indicates that the proton affinity (PA) of TcO4- is greater than that of ReO4-. Density functional theory computations agree with the experimental observation, providing PA[TcO4-] = 300.1 kcal mol-1 and PA[ReO4-] = 297.2 kcal mol-1. Attempts to rationalize these relative PAs based on elementary molecular parameters such as atomic charges indicate that the entirety of bond formation and concomitant bond disruption needs to be considered to understand the energies associated with such protonation processes. Although in both the gas and solution phases, TcO4- is a stronger base than ReO4-, it is noted that the significance of even such qualitative accordance is tempered by the very different natures of the underlying phenomena.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".