MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409359768 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2024-0216

Dielectric response of common explosives based on DFT-calculated IR spectra

2025· article· en· W4409359768 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samuel G. Lambrakos, Lou Massa, Sonjae Wallace, Scott Ramsey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryExplosive materialDielectricSpectral lineComputational chemistryDielectric responseOrganic chemistryOptoelectronicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detection of infrared (IR) spectrum features of target molecules can be achieved by comparison of experimentally measured spectra to template spectra within a database. The focus of this study is the scalability of density functional theory (DFT)-calculated IR spectra with respect to macroscales, characteristic of dielectric response as measured using IR spectroscopic methods, and demonstration that IR-spectrum databases can be constructed with respect to classes of target molecules, where DFT-calculated spectra provide a complementary extension of experimentally measured IR spectra. A case-study analysis concerning IR-spectra scalability for a set of common explosives, including TNT, is described. This analysis provides an example of calculating template spectra for potential detection of target molecules, where DFT-calculated IR spectra are frequently more convenient than laboratory measurements using IR spectroscopic methods. We have shown that DFT-calculated spectra can be included within template-spectrum databases, and their ability to show very good correlation with measured spectra.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207