MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383370720 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.3c02470

Toward Understanding and Controlling Organic Reactions on Metal Oxide Catalysts

2023· article· en· W4383370720 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Fung, Michael J. Janik, Steven Crossley, Ya-Huei Cathy Chin, Aditya Savara

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratoryChemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences DivisionBasic Energy SciencesU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of ScienceSavara PharmaceuticalsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCatalysisOxideChemistryTransition metalAdsorptionMoleculeMetalOrganic reactionChemical physicsNanotechnologyPhotochemistryCombinatorial chemistryComputational chemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metal oxides have structurally complex surfaces on which a variety of adsorption site types can occur, including cation sites, anion sites, oxygen vacancy sites, and Brønsted acid sites. These sites can catalyze the catalytic transformation of organic molecules via diverse routes, thus enabling H abstraction, O abstraction, C–C bond formation, and other reactions. This Perspective provides an update on recent advances and future directions for various organic reactions on metal oxide catalyst surfaces, particularly for C–H activation of alkanes and for C–C bond formation with organic oxygenate reactants. We put emphasis on the molecular scale details, on the active site structures required to enable the formation of kinetically relevant transition states, energetic descriptors, as well as contemporary ideas to enable low activation energies. This progress has been enabled by specialized experiments and the increased capabilities of modern electronic structure calculations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207