Computational and Machine Learning Methods for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture Using Metal–Organic Frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) using data sets of atomic and molecular force fields (FFs) has made significant progress and provided benefits in the fields of chemistry and material science. This work examines the interactions between chemistry and materials computational science at the atomic and molecular scales for metal–organic framework (MOF) adsorbent development toward carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) capture. Herein, a connection will be drawn between atomic forces predicted by ML algorithms and the structures of MOFs for CO 2 adsorption. Our study also takes into account the successes of atomic computational screening in the field of materials science, especially quantum ML, and its relationship to ML algorithms that clarify advancements in the area of CO 2 adsorption by MOFs. Additionally, we reviewed the processes for supplying data to ML algorithms for algorithm training, including text mining from scientific articles, and MOF’s formula processing linked to the chemical properties of MOFs. To create ML algorithms for future research, we recommend that the digitization of scientific records can help efficiently synthesize advanced MOFs. Finally, a future vision for developing pioneer MOF synthesis routes for CO 2 capture is presented in this review article.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".