MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966841651 · doi:10.1139/v01-173

Kinetics and mechanistic study of the ruthenium(III) catalyzed oxidative deamination and decarboxylation of <scp>L</scp>-valine by alkaline permanganate

2001· article· en· W1966841651 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dinesh Bilehal, Raviraj M. Kulkarni, Sharanappa T. Nandibewoor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicInorganic and Organometallic Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPermanganateIonic strengthRutheniumCatalysisInorganic chemistryKineticsOxidative deaminationAlkali metalSubstrate (aquarium)StoichiometryActivation energyValineReaction rate constantDecarboxylationOrganic chemistryAqueous solutionAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The kinetics of ruthenium(III) catalyzed oxidation of L-valine by permanganate in alkaline medium at a constant ionic strength has been studied spectrophotometrically. The reaction between permanganate and L-valine in alkaline medium exhibits 2:1 stoichiometry (KMnO4:L-valine). The reaction shows first-order dependence on the concentration of permanganate and ruthenium(III) and less than unit-order dependence on the concentrations of L-valine and alkali. The reaction rate increases both with an increase in ionic strength and a decrease in solvent polarity of the medium. Initial addition of reaction products did not significantly affect the rate. A mechanism involving the formation of a complex between catalyst and substrate has been proposed. The activation parameters were computed with respect to the slowest step of the mechanism.Key words: oxidation, L-valine, catalysis, ruthenium(III), kinetics.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations45
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicInorganic and Organometallic ChemistryFrench-language works237,207