MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965482958 · doi:10.1021/jp8066603

Boiling Points of Halogenated Ethanes: An Explanatory Model Implicating Weak Intermolecular Hydrogen−Halogen Bonding

2008· article· en· W1965482958 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Beauchamp

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsCégep de l'Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryIntermolecular forcePolarizabilityHalogenBoiling pointRefractionHalogen bondHydrogen bondMoleculeHydrogenPhysical chemistryComputational chemistryThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores via structural clues the influence of weak intermolecular hydrogen-halogen bonds on the boiling point of halogenated ethanes. The plot of boiling points of 86 halogenated ethanes versus the molar refraction (linked to polarizability) reveals a series of straight lines, each corresponding to one of nine possible arrangements of hydrogen and halogen atoms on the two-carbon skeleton. A multiple linear regression model of the boiling points could be designed based on molar refraction and subgroup structure as independent variables (R(2) = 0.995, standard error of boiling point 4.2 degrees C). The model is discussed in view of the fact that molar refraction can account for approximately 83.0% of the observed variation in boiling point, while 16.5% could be ascribed to weak C-X...H-C intermolecular interactions. The difference in the observed boiling point of molecules having similar molar refraction values but differing in hydrogen-halogen intermolecular bonds can reach as much as 90 degrees C.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicCrystallography and molecular interactionsFrench-language works237,207