MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1731117464 · doi:10.1002/poc.2935

Comparative studies on reaction of bis(<i>p</i>‐nitrophenyl) phosphate and α‐nucleophiles in cationic micellar media

2012· article· en· W1731117464 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Birendra Kumar, Manmohan L. Satnami, Kallol K. Ghosh, Kamil Kuča

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Organic Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMolecular Sensors and Ion Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity Grants CommissionSt. Francis Xavier University
KeywordsChemistryNucleophileCationic polymerizationBromideCetylpyridinium chlorideMicelleHydrolysisMedicinal chemistryPhosphateInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryPulmonary surfactantCatalysisAqueous solution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the cleave of bis(p‐nitrophenyl) phosphate (BNPP) over a pH range of 7.0–12.0 in the presence of cationic micelles of cetyldiethylethanolammonium bromide, cetyldimethylethanolammonium bromide, cetylpyridinium bromide, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, and cetylpyridinium chloride by using different α‐nucleophiles, viz acetohydroxamate, benzohydroxamate, salicylhydroxamate, butane‐2,3‐dione monooximate, and α‐benzoin oximate ions. With the use of α‐nucleophiles in cationic micellar media, the hydrolytic cleavage of BNPP was found to be approximately 105‐fold faster than its spontaneous hydrolysis. All reactions followed pseudo‐first‐order kinetics. The effect of various concentrations of cationic micelles for the reaction of BNPP and α‐nucleophiles has been studied. The variation of kobs values of the reactions depends on the micellar structure, that is, head groups, hydrophobic tail length, and counter ion. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical Organic ChemistrySame topicMolecular Sensors and Ion DetectionFrench-language works237,207