MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3184956878 · doi:10.1063/5.0054859

The impact of water vapor on the OH reactivity toward CH3CHO at ultra-low temperatures (21.7–135.0 K): Experiments and theory

2021· article· en· W3184956878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elias M. Neeman, Daniel González, Sergio Blázquez, Bernabé Ballesteros, André Canosa, María Antiñolo, Luc Vereecken, José Albaladejo, Elena Jiménez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales
KeywordsReactivity (psychology)AcetaldehydeChemistryRadicalWater vaporCatalysisHydrogenGas phaseNozzleWork (physics)Physical chemistryThermodynamicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of water vapor (H2O) and its hydrogen-bonded complexes in the gas-phase reactivity of organic compounds with hydroxyl (OH) radicals has been the subject of many recent studies. Contradictory effects have been reported at temperatures between 200 and 400 K. For the OH + acetaldehyde reaction, a slight catalytic effect of H2O was previously reported at temperatures between 60 and 118 K. In this work, we used Laval nozzle expansions to reinvestigate the impact of H2O on the OH-reactivity with acetaldehyde between 21.7 and 135.0 K. The results of this comprehensive study demonstrate that water, instead, slows down the reaction by factors of ∼3 (21.7 K) and ∼2 (36.2–89.5 K), and almost no effect of added H2O was observed at 135.0 K.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical Physics→Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→