MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003016049 · doi:10.1016/j.jasms.2009.01.014

Kinetics for tautomerizations and dissociations of triglycine radical cations

2009· article· en· W2003016049 on OpenAlexafffund
Chi‐Kit Siu, Junfang Zhao, Julia Laskin, Ivan K. Chu, Alan C. Hopkinson, K. W. Michael Siu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersPacific Northwest National LaboratoryBasic Energy SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBattelleYork UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsChemistryProtonationTautomerRadical ionHydrogen atomFragmentation (computing)ProtonIonDensity functional theoryKineticsComputational chemistryStereochemistryGroup (periodic table)Organic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fragmentations of tautomers of the alpha-centered radical triglycine radical cation, [GGG(*)](+), [GG(*)G](+), and [G(*)GG](+), are charge-driven, giving b-type ions; these are processes that are facilitated by a mobile proton, as in the fragmentation of protonated triglycine (Rodriquez, C. F. et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 3006-3012). By contrast, radical centers are less mobile. Two mechanisms have been examined theoretically utilizing density functional theory and Rice-Ramsperger-Kassel-Marcus modeling: (1) a direct hydrogen-atom migration between two alpha-carbons, and (2) a two-step proton migration involving canonical [GGG](*+) as an intermediate. Predictions employing the latter mechanism are in good agreement with results of recent CID experiments (Chu, I. K. et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 7862-7872).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.277
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Mass SpectrometrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207