Historical perspective on: Infrared chemiluminescence study of the reaction Cl + HI → HCl + I at enhanced collision energies [Volume 12, Issue 1, 1 December 1971, Pages 144–149]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Letter, originally published in 1971, is one of the first reports of infrared chemiluminescence results from the Polanyi laboratory.Although it represented very early work, the success of the experimental method and the extensive range of information that could be obtained from it were already very clear by that time.The success of these early efforts to detect and study infrared chemiluminescence was, of course, a source of considerable satisfaction to Professor Polanyi.He was fond of quoting a referee of one of his early proposals, who scoffed at the thought that chemical reactions could emit any detectable infrared light.The reviewer backed up his rejection of the proposal by pointing out that if the ideas in it were correct, then reversibility would predict that chemical reactions would be driven by light emitted from the surrounding walls -clearly a preposterous idea.The idea became considerably less preposterous a few years later, however, when chemical lasers, which owed their invention to the vibrational inversions observed in the Polanyi infrared chemiluminescence experiments, evolved into tools for the manipulation of detailed chemical reaction rates in many chemical physics laboratories.This practical illustration of
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".