MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411156900 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adda2d

Assessing the Role of Large Fullerenes as Potential Carriers of Infrared Emission Plateaus

2025· article· en· W4411156900 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandra Ricca, E. Peeters, J. Cami

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFullerene Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsFullereneInfraredAstrophysicsAstrobiologyAstronomyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate large fullerenes containing between 90 and 1750 carbon atoms and with radii ranging from 4.4 to 12.9 Å, and compare their computed emission spectra to Spitzer data for the fullerene-rich planetary nebulae SMP SMC 24 and SMP LMC 48 to assess their contribution to the broad infrared emission plateaus. The structures are computed without any bias using molecular dynamics simulations and contain mostly five- and six-membered rings, several seven-membered rings, and very few four- and eight-membered rings. Our largest structures consist of multishell fullerenes. The infrared spectra are calculated using the density-functional-based tight-binding theory. Their emission spectra exhibit broad plateaus from 6 to 10 μ m and from 14 to 20 μ m, whose 6–10/14–20 relative intensity ratios reach a maximum value for ∼200 carbons. The computed 6–10 μ m plateaus exhibit distinct subfeatures in agreement with the observations. The subfeatures with the largest intensities peak at 6.6 and 7.7–7.9 μ m. We assign these subfeatures to C–C stretching vibrations from the different types of rings arranged in many different ways. A comparison of the computed 6–10/14–20 μ m intensity ratios as a function of fullerene size and photon energy with the observed 6–10/14–20 μ m intensity ratio for SMP LMC 48 allows us to derive an upper bound of ∼150–200 carbons for the fullerene size.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicFullerene Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207