MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967537558 · doi:10.1080/10826070701224911

Prediction of the Lipophilicity of Some Plant Growth Stimulators by RP‐TLC and Relationship Between Slope and Intercept of TLC Equations

2007· article· en· W1967537558 on OpenAlex
Simion Gocan, Simona Codruța Aurora Cobzac, Nelu Grinberg

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Liquid Chromatography & Related Technologies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLipophilicityChemistryChromatographyPartition coefficientThin-layer chromatographyEthanolamineMaleic acidAnalytical Chemistry (journal)StereochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using RP‐TLC with RP‐18 F254s and a methanol‐water mixture as the mobile phase, several new compounds (some plant growth stimulators, such as amido esters of ethanolamine and maleic and succinic acid derivatives) were studied. The log P values were calculated using fragmental constant or ACD/Labs Software database (Toronto, Canada). A good correlation was obtained between log P vs. R M0 and C 0, respectively. These relationships can be used for prediction of the lipophilicity of similar compounds from the same structural group. The relationship between intercepts and slopes from TLC equations showed a very good correlation. The results obtained by RP‐TLC demonstrated a basic feature of lipophilicity; that both series of compounds are two “congeneric” series.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.212 · 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