MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1839620171 · doi:10.1139/v2012-009

Bonding topology, hydrogen bond strength, and vibrational chemical shifts on hetero-ring hydrogen-bonded complexes — Theoretical insights revisited

2012· article· en· W1839620171 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Boaz G. Oliveira, Regiane C. M. U. Araújo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsChemistryHydrogen bondAtoms in moleculesMoleculeHydrogenDipoleRing (chemistry)Charge (physics)ProtonComputational chemistryCrystallographyAtomic physicsTopology (electrical circuits)Organic chemistryQuantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a theoretical study about the interaction strength of the hydrogen-bonded complexes C2H4O···HF, C3H6O···HF, C2H4O···HCF3, and C3H6O···HCF3 at the B3LYP/6–311++G(d,p) level. The structures, hydrogen bond energies, charge transfers, and dipole moments of these complexes were analyzed in accordance with routine spectroscopy events, such as the red- and blue-shifts on the stretch frequencies of the proton donors (HF and HCF3). The ChelpG atomic charges were used to quantify the charge-transfer fluxes from electron donor (O) towards to acceptors (HF or HCF3). Moreover, the topological calculations on the basis of the quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM) approach were also used to unveil the hydrogen bond strength (O···H), mainly in the determination of their electronic densities and Laplacian shapes.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicCrystallography and molecular interactionsFrench-language works237,207