MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085992931 · doi:10.1039/d0cp04186f

Computational study of the rovibrational spectrum of CO<sub>2</sub>–N<sub>2</sub>

2020· article· en· W3085992931 on OpenAlexaff
Ernesto Quintas‐Sánchez, Richard Dawes, Xiaogang Wang, Tucker Carrington

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Laser Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRotational–vibrational spectroscopyEnergy spectrumSpectrum (functional analysis)Potential energy surfaceEnergy (signal processing)PhysicsAtomic physicsChemistryMoleculeQuantum mechanicsExcited state

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CO2-N2 complex is formed from two key components of Earth's atmosphere, and as such, has received some attention from both experimental and theoretical studies. On the theory side, a potential energy surface (PES) based on high level ab initio data was reported [Nasri et al., J. Chem. Phys., 2015, 142, 174301] and then used in more recently reported rovibrational calculations [Lara-Moreno et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2019, 21, 3550]. Accuracy of about 1 percent was achieved for calculated rotational transitions of the ground vibrational state of the complex, compared with previously reported microwave spectra. However, a very recent measurement of the geared bending mode frequency [Barclay et al., J. Chem. Phys., 2020, 153, 014303] recorded a value of 21.4 cm-1, which is wildly different from the corresponding calculated value of 45.9 cm-1. To provide some insight into this discrepancy, we have constructed a new more accurate PES, and used it to perform highly converged variational rovibrational calculations. Our new results yield a value of 21.1 cm-1 for that bending frequency, in close agreement with the experiment. We also obtain significantly improved predicted rotational transitions. Finally, we note that a very shallow well, previously reported as a distinct second isomer, is not found on our new PES, but rather a transition structure is seen in that location.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Chemistry Chemical PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Laser ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207