Relativistic effects for the reaction Ubq + 6 CO = Ubq (CO)6 or Ubq (OC)6:Prediction of the existence, atomization energy, and isomerization energy of the isomers Ubq (CO)6 and Ubq (OC)6 of element Ubq ( Z=124, eka-uranium)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our ab initio all-electron relativistic Dirac*Fock (DF) calculations for the octahedral (Oh) Ubq(CO)6 and Ubq(OC)6 predict atomization energies (Ae) of 50.25 (47.93) and 43.43 (44.88 ) eV, respectively where the corresponding non-relativistic calculated Ae's are given in parenthesis. Our calculated DF and NR isomerization energies (E iso) for Ubq (CO) 6 = Ubq (OC) 6 are 6.83 and 3.05 eV, respectively. Our calculated DF (NR) energy for the reaction Ubq + 6CO = Ubq (CO)6 is -4.31 (-4.30) eV, while the energy of the isomeric reaction Ubq + 6CO = Ubq(OC)6 is 2.52 ( -1.25 ) eV, respectively. The relativistic effects increase the Eiso of Ubq (CO)6 by ~3.78 eV , decrease the Ubq-C bond distance by 0.12 angstroms and have a negligible effect on the C-O bond distance as expected. These are the first results of relativistic effects for isomerztion energy and atomization energy of the superheavy Ubq (CO)6 and Ubq(OC)6. The bond distances Ubq-C and Ubq-O optimized at the DF level of theory for Ubq(CO)6 and Ubq(OC)6 are 2.572 and 2.559 angstroms, while the corresponding optimized bond distances Ubq-C and Ubq-O at the NR level of theory are 2.691 and 3.616 angstroms, respectively. Both our DF and NR calculations clearly predict the formation of both the isomers Ubq(CO)6 and Ubq(OC), and the former is predicted to be more stable at the DF level of theory by ~7 eV than the latter.No such calculations have been reported before for systems of such superheavy elements.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".