MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996953504 · doi:10.1021/ja0613198

Structural Factors Controlling the Self-Assembly of Columnar Liquid Crystals

2006· article· en· W1996953504 on OpenAlexafffund
E. Johan Foster, Ray Jones, Christine Lavigueur, Vance E. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLiquid Crystal Research Advancements
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryMoleculeLondon dispersion forcePolar effectColumnar phaseLiquid crystalCrystallographyCondensationPhenanthreneSelf-assemblyOrganic chemistryLiquid crystallinePhase (matter)van der Waals force

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of disc-shaped molecules were prepared by the condensation of 1,2-diamines with 2,3,6,7-tetrakis(hexyloxy)phenanthrene-9,10-dione to investigate the relationship between changes in molecular structure and the self-assembly of columnar liquid crystalline phases. A comparison of compounds with different core sizes indicated that molecules with larger aromatic cores had a greater propensity to form columnar phases, as did compounds substituted with electron-withdrawing groups. In contrast, molecules with electron-donating substituents were nonmesogenic. The clearing temperature of columnar phases increased linearly with the electron-withdrawing ability of the substituents, as quantified by Hammett sigma-values. The observed trends can be rationalized in terms of the strength of pi-pi interactions between aromatic cores in the liquid crystalline phases and suggest that both electrostatic interactions and dispersion forces play important roles in the self-assembly of these materials.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations172
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicLiquid Crystal Research AdvancementsFrench-language works237,207