Even‐electron ions: a systematic study of the neutral species lost in the dissociation of quasi‐molecular ions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collision-induced dissociations of the even-electron [M + H](+) and/or [M - H](-) ions of 121 model compounds (mainly small aromatic compounds with one to three functional groups) ionized by electrospray ionization (ESI) or atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) have been studied using an ion trap instrument, and the results are compared with the literature data. While some functional groups (such as COOH, COOCH(3), SO(3)H in the negative ion mode, or NO(2) in both the positive and negative ion modes) generally promote the loss of neutrals that are characteristic as well as specific, other functional groups (such as COOH in the positive ion mode) give rise to the loss of neutrals that are characteristic, but not specific. Finally, functional groups such as OH and NH(2) in aromatic compounds do not lead to the loss of a neutral that reflects the presence of these substituents. In general, the dissociation of [M + H](+) and [M - H](-) ions generated from aliphatic compounds or compounds containing an aliphatic moiety obeys the even-electron rule (loss of a molecule), but deviations from this rule (loss of a radical) are sometimes observed for aromatic compounds, in particular for nitroaromatic compounds. Thermochemical data and ab initio calculations at the CBS-QB3 level of theory provide an explanation for these exceptions. When comparing the dissociation behaviour of the even-electron [M + H](+) and/or [M - H](-) ions (generated by ESI or APCI) with that of the corresponding odd-electron [M](+) ions (generated by electron ionization, EI), three cases may be distinguished: (1) the dissociation of the two ionic species differs completely; (2) the dissociation involves the loss of a common neutral, yielding product ions differing in mass by one Da, or (3) the dissociations lead to a common product ion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".