MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045727738 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2020-0122

Effect of external growth environment on cocrystal habits of HNIW/DNB: a molecular dynamics simulation

2020· article· en· W3045727738 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liang Song, Siyu Xu, Fengqi Zhao, Xue‐Hai Ju

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystallization and Solubility Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsCocrystalChemistryMolecular dynamicsCrystal (programming language)EthanolMoleculeRecrystallization (geology)Hydrogen bondCrystallographyComputational chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modified attachment energy model was applied to predict the crystal morphology of hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane/1,3-dinitrobenzene (HNIW/DNB) cocrystal in ethanol. A double-layer interface structure was established based on experiments. Molecular dynamics simulation was employed to investigate the interaction of flat faces and ethanol solvents. We used periodic bond chains and roughness calculations to analyze the characteristics of the HNIW/DNB cocrystal. The crystal morphology of the HNIW/DNB cocrystal is mainly composed of the (001), (010), (102), and (111) faces in vacuum. The (001) face occupies the largest area (49.54%). In ethanol, the area of the (001) face increases to 68.58%. Ethanol molecules are adsorbed on the polar face through hydrogen bonding. In the slowest growth direction, two HNIW layers and one DNB layer alternately appear. The higher molecular recognition of the (001) face of HNIW/DNB resulted in this face becoming the most important growth face. Meanwhile, we also predicted the crystal morphologies of ε-HNIW and DNB in ethanol. The prediction morphologies are in excellent agreement with the experimental shapes. These simulation results can provide guidance for the recrystallization of HNIW/DNB.

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 score0.385

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicCrystallization and Solubility StudiesFrench-language works237,207