MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993253370 · doi:10.1139/v03-180

Inclusion complexation involving sugar-containing species: β-cyclodextrin and sugar surfactants

2004· article· en· W1993253370 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Vincent C. Reinsborough, Vanessa C Stephenson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicDrug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryPulmonary surfactantCyclodextrinCritical micelle concentrationMicelleSugarSurface tensionMoleculeProton NMROrganic chemistryStereochemistryPolymer chemistryAqueous solutionBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface tension, proton NMR, and computer modeling studies were undertaken in nonionic alkylpolyglycoside (APG) solutions containing β-cyclodextrin (β-CD) with a view to characterize the inclusion complexes formed and to determine if the sugar entities of the host and guest molecules played a significant role in the process. The APGs investigated were four glucopyranosides (octyl G8, decyl G10, dodecyl G12, tetradecyl G14) and two maltosides (decyl M10, dodecyl M12). Critical micelle concentrations (CMC) were obtained in the surfactant–β-CD systems, which in all cases increased with increasing β-CD concentration. The 1:1 APG–β-CD inclusion complex was principally formed with binding constants of 425 (mol L –1 ) –1 for the G12 complex, 340 (mol L –1 ) –1 for the G10 complex, and 125 (mol L –1 ) –1 for the M12 complex. The preferred configuration of the G-12–β-CD complex has the surfactant tail coiled in the CD cavity with the surfactant sugar moiety sealing off the narrower opening of the CD torus.Key words: alkylpolyglycoside, β-cyclodextrin, NMR, critical micelle concentration, surface tension.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicDrug Solubulity and Delivery SystemsFrench-language works237,207