MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015666839 · doi:10.1021/jp711447r

Fluorescence Study of Inclusion Complexes between Star-Shaped Cholic Acid Derivatives and Polycyclic Aromatic Fluorescent Probes and the Size Effects of Host and Guest Molecules

2008· article· en· W2015666839 on OpenAlexaff
Yilong Chen, Juntao Luo, X. X. Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMolecular Sensors and Ion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyreneCoroneneChemistryFluorescenceSolvophobicMoleculeAqueous solutionPerylenePhotochemistryPolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonInclusion compoundCholic acidSolventOrganic chemistryBile acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Star-shaped host molecules containing two, three, and four cholic acid moieties have been used to form inclusion complexes with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon probes (guests) varying in size from four (pyrene) to five (benzo(e)pyrene) and seven aromatic rings (coronene) and investigated by steady-state fluorescence measurements and fluorescence lifetime techniques. The results indicated that these hydrophobic guest probes prefer to locate in the hydrophobic cavities formed by the host molecules in an aqueous solution. Further studies showed that the stoichiometric ratios of the complexes depended on the relative size of both the host and the guest. The complexes of 1:1 ratio (guest:host) were formed between pyrene and the host molecules of different sizes, while the complexes of 1:2 ratio (guest:host) were found for coronene in all cases. For benzo(e)pyrene with an intermediate size, the complexes with 1:1 and 1:2 ratios (guest:host) were formed depending on the relative sizes of the host molecules. The stability of the inclusion complexes was observed to change with the solvent polarity, indicative of an adaptation of the hydrophobicity of the host pockets to the polarity of the solvent. The formation of the complexes was driven by the solvophobic interactions.

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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations36
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicMolecular Sensors and Ion DetectionFrench-language works237,207