MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023072823 · doi:10.1021/cg800452w

Understanding the Role Structural Changes Play in the Formation of Strong and Weak Hydrogen Bonds in Tetramethylalkyldiammonium Dithiocyanate Salts

2008· article· en· W2023072823 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Wolstenholme, Jan J. Weigand, E.M. Cameron, T. Stanley Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueCrystal Growth & Design · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogen bondChemistryCrystallographyLone pairMoleculeAcceptorAlkylStereochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural analyses for a series of tetramethylalkyldiammonium dithiocyanate salts have been carried out on low-temperature and high-resolution X-ray diffraction data. This series of organic salts contains both strong and weak hydrogen bonds which vary depending on the number of methylene groups bridging the two ammonium portions of the molecules. The S−N···H angles associated with the strong N−H···N hydrogen bonds in this series progressively decrease as the length of the alkyl bridge increases (ethylene > propylene > butylene). This results in less linear interaction between the N−H donor groups and the lone pair of the N acceptor atoms. The N,N,N′,N′-tetramethylpropylenediammonium and N,N,N′,N′-tetramethylbutylenediammonium dithiocyanate salts also produce weak C−H···N hydrogen bonds. The C−H···N and N−H···N interactions in this series undergo bifurcation, while one set of C−H···N and N−H···N hydrogen bonds in the propylene salt appears to experience a cooperative effect. A comparison of the topological properties of the electron density has shown a number of similarities and differences in the electronic nature of the strong and weak interactions in all three salts. This has all led to a better understanding of the electronic nature of these interactions and how they logically distribute themselves in the crystalline state.

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 score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrystal Growth & DesignSame topicCrystallography and molecular interactionsFrench-language works237,207