MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985468468 · doi:10.1021/jp0609378

Why <i>tert</i>-Butyl Alcohol Associates in Aqueous Solution but Trimethylamine-<i>N</i>-oxide Does Not

2006· article· en· W1985468468 on OpenAlexaff
Sandip Paul, G. N. Patey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrimethylamine N-oxideAqueous solutionChemistryHydrogen bondTrimethylamineAlcoholOxideMoleculetert-Butyl alcoholInorganic chemistryComputational chemistryPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In dilute aqueous solution, tert-butyl alcohol (TBA) tends to aggregate but trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) does not. Given that both molecules have very similar geometry with hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, it is interesting to ask why they behave so differently in aqueous solution. To explore this question, we use molecular dynamics simulations to study two models representing TBA and TMAO that differ essentially only in their electrostatic properties. It is shown that this difference is sufficient to give the different solution behavior. Furthermore, the principal difference identified is that the hydrophilic group of TMAO (the oxygen) interacts on average much more strongly with water than the corresponding group (the hydroxyl) of TBA. A hydrogen-bond analysis shows that water-TBA and water-TMAO hydrogen bonds are similar in number, but that the hydrogen-bond energy is much more negative for water-TMAO. In all likelihood, this accounts for the different behavior in dilute aqueous solution.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations81
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207