MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005453144 · doi:10.1021/jp404017r

Conformation and Hydrogen-Bond-Assisted Polymerization in Glycine Lithium Sulfate at High Pressures

2013· article· en· W2005453144 on OpenAlexaff
Ajay K. Mishra, Chitra Murli, Ashok K. Verma, Yang Song, M.R. Suresh Kumar, Surinder M. Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaman spectroscopyHydrogen bondIntramolecular forceChemistryDensity functional theoryGlycineLithium (medication)CrystallographyPolymerizationMoleculeComputational chemistryStereochemistryPolymerAmino acidOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conformation of glycine has been a subject of extensive research for the past several years. As glycine exists in zwitterionic form in liquids and solids, the experimental observations of its neutral conformation are very limited. The complexes of glycine are simple prototypes to study the conformational properties of glycine. We have investigated the high-pressure behavior of glycine lithium sulfate (GLS), a semiorganic complex of glycine using X-ray diffraction, Raman spectroscopy, and density functional theory (DFT)-based first principles calculations. Our Raman studies and DFT calculations suggest formation of an intramolecular hydrogen bond at higher pressures. Subsequent to a structural transformation to a new high-pressure phase at ∼9 GPa, the observed spectral changes in the Raman spectra above 14 GPa indicate possible conformational change of glycine from zwitterionic to neutral form. At pressures above 18 GPa, the characteristic features in the Raman spectra and the X-ray diffraction patterns suggest transformation to a hydrogen-bond-assisted polymeric phase with intermediate range order.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicCrystallography and molecular interactionsFrench-language works237,207