MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021157171 · doi:10.1021/jp064181o

A Topological Investigation of the Nonlinear Optical Compound:  Iodoform Octasulfur

2006· article· en· W2021157171 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Wolstenholme, Katherine N. Robertson, Eduardo Mesa Gonzalez, T. Stanley Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIodoformMultipole expansionAcceptorvan der Waals forceMoleculeCharge (physics)Density functional theoryChemical physicsCrystal (programming language)Electron densityComputational chemistryChemistryMaterials scienceCrystallographyTopology (electrical circuits)ElectronPhysicsQuantum mechanicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crystal structure of the nonlinear optical material, iodoform octasulfur (CHI3.(S8)3), in the polar space group R3m, has been shown to contain three unique S...I and several S...S close contacts (<or= 4.0 A), that fall well below the sum of the van der Waals radii of the two atoms concerned. These interactions have all been characterized topologically following the multipole refinement of the crystal structure of iodoform octasulfur. The natures of the possible charge transfer (S...I) and electrostatic (S...S) interactions in this molecule have been investigated based on charge density studies. The properties of the electron density at the bond critical points provide a tool for determining which of the sulfur or iodine atom acts as the donor and which acts as the acceptor in each of the possible S...I charge-transfer interactions present in this molecule. This all leads to a better understanding of the donor/acceptor nature for both types of atoms in charge-transfer complexes of inorganic nonlinear optical materials. The analysis of the structure of iodoform octasulfur has also provided new insight into the relationship between charge density studies and VSEPR 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 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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