MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013841598 · doi:10.1039/c1ob05393k

Bent bonds, the antiperiplanar hypothesis and the theory of resonance. A simple model to understand reactivity in organic chemistry

2011· article· en· W2013841598 on OpenAlexafffund
Ghislain Deslongchamps, Pierre Deslongchamps

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganic & Biomolecular Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganic Chemistry Cycloaddition Reactions
Canadian institutionsOmegaChem (Canada)Université LavalUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsChemistryReactivity (psychology)Bent molecular geometryAlkane stereochemistryDelocalized electronComputational chemistryConjugated systemAromaticityResonance (particle physics)MoleculeOrganic chemistryPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By taking into consideration bent bonds (τ-bonds, tau-bonds), the antiperiplanar hypothesis, the classic theory of resonance, and the preference for staggered bonds over eclipsed bonds in tetrahedral systems, a simple qualitative model is presented to rationalize the conformation and reactivity for a wide range of compounds containing double bonds and/or carbonyl groups. Alkenes, carbonyl and carboxyl derivatives, conjugated systems as well as other functional groups are revisited. This also leads to a simple model to understand aromaticity, and electrocyclic reactions. The bent bond model and the antiperiplanar hypothesis provide a qualitative model for better understanding the electron delocalization and the reactivity inherent to unsaturated organic systems by an alternative view of the classic resonance theory.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations56
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganic & Biomolecular ChemistrySame topicOrganic Chemistry Cycloaddition ReactionsFrench-language works237,207