Stability and Three-Dimensional Aromaticity of<i>closo</i>-NB<i><sub>n</sub></i><sub>-</sub><sub>1</sub>H<i><sub>n</sub></i>Azaboranes,<i>n</i>= 5−12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computations on all the possible positional isomers of the closo-azaboranes NB(n)()(-)(1)H(n)() (n = 5-12) reveal substantial differences in the relative energies. Data at the B3LYP/6-311+G level of density functional theory (DFT) agree well with expectations based on the topological charge stabilization, with the qualitative connectivity preferences of Williams, and with the Jemmis-Schleyer six interstitial electron rules. The energetic relationship involving each of the most stable positional isomers, 1-NB(4)H(5), NB(5)H(6), 2-NB(6)H(7), 1-NB(7)H(8), 4-NB(8)H(9), 1-NB(9)H(10), 2-NB(10)H(11), NB(11)H(12), was based on the energies (DeltaH) of the model reaction: NBH(2) + (n-1)BH(increment) --> NB(n)()H(n)()(+1) (n = 4-11). This evaluation shows that the stabilities of closo-azaboranes NB(n)()(-)(1)H(n)() (n = 5-12) increase with increasing cluster size from 5 to 12 vertexes. The "three-dimensional aromaticity" of these closo-azaboranes NB(n)()(-)(1)H(n)() (n = 5-12) is demonstrated by their the nucleus-independent chemical shifts (NICS) and their magnetic susceptibilities (chi), which match one another well. However, there is no direct relationship between these magnetic properties and the relative stabilities of the positional isomers of each cluster. As expected, other energy contributions such as topological charge stabilization and connectivity can be equally important.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".