MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1918902674 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2014-0163

Halogen bond interactions enhanced by sodium bonds — Theoretical evidence for cooperative and substitution effects in NCX···NCNa···NCY complexes (X = F, Cl, Br, I; Y = H, F, OH)

2014· article· en· W1918902674 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mehdi D. Esrafili, Nafiseh Mohammadirad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCooperativityHalogen bondHalogenCrystallographyBond energyMoleculeAtoms in moleculesBond lengthComputational chemistryHydrogen bondCrystal structureOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum chemical calculations are performed to study cooperativity and substituent effects between halogen bond and sodium bond interactions in NCX···NCNa···NCY complexes, where X = F, Cl, Br, I and Y = H, F, OH. These effects are studied in terms of equilibrium geometry, interaction energy, 15 N nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) parameters, and electron density analysis of the complexes at the MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ level. The X···N and Na···N bond lengths in the ternary systems are always shorter than those in the corresponding dyads. In each triad, the decrease in the halogen bond length is far greater than that of the sodium bond. In all triads studied, a favorable cooperativity is found with values that range between –0.30 and –1.72 kcal/mol. It is revealed that NMR parameters at the site of the nitrogen atom of the NCNa molecule can be regarded as a good description to quantify the degree of cooperative effects in the NCX···NCNa···NCY systems. The nature of halogen bond and sodium bond interactions of the complexes is analyzed using parameters derived from the quantum theory of atoms in molecules methodology and energy decomposition analysis.

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)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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