MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977491856 · doi:10.1139/v07-023

The natural bite angle — Seen from a ligand's point of view

2007· article· en· W1977491856 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olaf Kühl

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetal complexes synthesis and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBite angleLigand (biochemistry)ChemistryCrystallographyMetalBond lengthStereochemistryCrystal structureOrganic chemistryDenticityReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The natural bite angle concept is examined using N,N′-bisphosphino urea ligands as rigid scaffolds. The ligand has an upper limit of about 95° for the observed bite angle in chelate complexes, but prefers a much lower one. The ligand can be described as possessing downward flexibility. The dependence of the bite angle on the P—P distance within the ligand and the M—P bond length is illustrated. The metal tries to force the ligand into its own preferred structure, whereas the ligand wants to achieve a short P—P distance. A truly rigid ligand such as the N,N′-bisphosphino urea family is thus seen to clearly discriminate between metal atoms according to their individual assertiveness, using the P—P distance in the complex as a measure. Although the natural bite angle concept is valid and helpful in determining the possible bite-angle range for ligands before it is actually synthesised, its practical applicability seems to be limited to those cases where the flexibility range of the ligand allows for only one metal-preferred bite angle to be realized.Key words: natural bite angle, ligand effects, ligand design.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicMetal complexes synthesis and propertiesFrench-language works237,207