MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028561584 · doi:10.1021/ct800017j

Gas-Phase Interaction of Calcium (Ca<sup>2+</sup>) with Seleno Derivatives of Uracil

2008· article· en· W2028561584 on OpenAlexaff
Al Mokhtar Lamsabhi, Otília Mó, Manuel Yáñez, Russell J. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTautomerHeteroatomChemistryGas phaseDensity functional theoryNitrogenOxygen atomAtom (system on chip)CatalysisNitrogen atomUracilCrystallographyComputational chemistryMoleculeStereochemistryPhysical chemistryRing (chemistry)Organic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structures and relative stabilities of the complexes between Ca(2+) and 2-selenouracil, 4-selenouracil, and 2,4-diselenouracil have been investigated through the use of B3LYP/6-311++G(3df,2p)//B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p) density functional theory (DFT) calculations. In those systems where both types of basic centers, a carbonyl or a selenocarbonyl group, are present, Ca(2+) association with the oxygen is favored. For 2,4-diselenouracil the nitrogen atom at position 3 is the most basic site toward Ca(2+) attachment followed by heteroatoms attached to positions 4 and 2. Although the enolic and selenol forms of selenouracils should not be observed in the gas phase, the corresponding Ca(2+) complexes are the most stable ones. More importantly, all the activation barriers associated with the corresponding tautomeric processes are lower than the entrance channel, and therefore not only these complexes should be observed but also they should be the dominant species in the gas phase. Also, Ca(2+) association has a clear catalytic effect on these tautomerization processes, whose activation barriers decrease between 10 and 15 kcal mol(-1).

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicCrystallography and molecular interactionsFrench-language works237,207