Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Many Density Functional Theory Approaches Fail To Give Reliable Large Hydrocarbon Isomer Energy Differences

Schreiner, Peter R., Fokin, Andrey A., Pascal,, Robert A., de Meijere, Armin·2006·Organic Letters

Abstract

[structure: see text] Several DFT methods were found to be unreliable for computing hydrocarbon isomer energy differences. The errors grow with system size up to 20 kcal mol(-1) for the relative energies of the (CH)12 isomers; octahedrane is the most stable (CH)12 hydrocarbon. While DFT geometries generally are good, problems arise for structures with single bonds only, especially for small rings. We recommend the use of higher level, non-DFT energy single points computed at DFT-optimized structures.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ol0610486

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Metadata

Authors
Schreiner, P. R., Fokin, A. A., Pascal, & de Meijere, A.
Venue
Organic Letters
Published
2006-07-27
Volume
8
Issue
17
Pages
3635-3638
ISSN
  • 1523-7052 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-7060
OpenAlex
W1982044891
Cited by
307
References
0
FWCI
24.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.