Towards Predicting the Sequential Appearance of Zeolitic Imidazolate Frameworks Synthesized by Mechanochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use computational materials methods to study the sequential appearance of zinc-based zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs) generated in the mechanochemical conversion process. We consider nine ZIF topologies, namely RHO, ANA, QTZ, SOD, KAT, DIA, NEB, CAG and GIS, combined with the two ligands 2-methylimidazolate and 2-ethylimidazolate. Of the 18 combinations obtained, only six (three for each ligand) were actually observed during the mechanosynthesis process. Energy and porosity calculations based on density functional theory, in combination with the Ostwald rule of stages, were found to be insufficient to distinguish the experimentally observed ZIFs. We then show, using classical molecular dynamics, that only ZIFs withstanding quasi-hydrostatic pressure P ≥ 0.3 GPa without being destroyed were observed in the laboratory. This finding, along with the requirement that successive ZIFs be generated with decreasing porosity and/or energy, provides heuristic rules for predicting the sequences of mechanically generated ZIFs for the two ligands considered.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".