Chemical Reactivity Descriptors for Ambiphilic Reagents: Dual Descriptor, Local Hypersoftness, and Electrostatic Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The second-order response of the electron density with respect to changes in electron number, known as the dual descriptor, has been established as a key reactivity indicator for reactions like pericyclic reactions, where reagents accept and donate electrons concurrently. Here we establish that the dual descriptor is also the key reactivity indicator for ambiphilic reagents: reagents that can act either as electrophiles or as nucleophiles, depending on the reaction partner. Specifically, we study dual atoms (which are proposed to act, simultaneously, as an electron acceptor and an electron donor), dual molecules (which react with both electrophiles and nucleophiles, generally at different sites), and dual ion-molecule complexes (which react with both cations and anions). On the basis of our analysis, the dual atom (an Al(I) that has been purported to be dual in the literature) is actually pseudodual in the sense that it does not truly accept electrons from a nucleophiles; rather, it serves as a conduit through which an electrophile can donate electrons to the attached aromatic ring. For understanding dual ion-molecule complexes, it helps to understand that the dual descriptor makes a key contribution to the long-range portion of the quadratic hyperpolarization. In all cases, a complete description of the reactivity of the ambiphilic reagent requires considering both an orbital-based descriptor of electron transfer (the dual descriptor or the local hypersoftness) and the electrostatic potential. The local hypersoftness strongly resembles the dual descriptor.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".