MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032809030 · doi:10.1016/j.crci.2005.03.006

The importance of ligand–ligand interactions for molecular geometry and the ligand close-packing model

2005· article· en· W2032809030 on OpenAlex
R. J. Gillespie, E. A. Robinson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComptes Rendus Chimie · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLigand (biochemistry)MoleculeBond lengthGeminalSteric effectsElectronegativityAtom (system on chip)Computational chemistryChemical physicsMolecular geometryChemistryCrystallographyStereochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is shown that repulsions between vicinal ligands and groups can be of considerable importance in determining molecular geometry, particularly for small central atoms. The importance of such repulsions was first proposed in the 1960s for molecules with a central carbon atom but has much more recently also been shown to be the case for molecules with other small central atoms. Indeed for such molecules the ligands may be considered to be close-packed around the central atom and from the constant ligand–ligand distances in these molecules a ligand radius for the atom bonded to the central atom may be deduced. These radii decrease across the periodic table as the charge on the ligand decreases with increasing electronegativity of the central atom. It is shown that most of the exceptions to the VSEPR model for molecules with non-metal central atoms can be explained if ligand–ligand repulsions, which are not explicitly considered in the VSEPR model, are taken into account. For example, the VSEPR model predicts that the bond angle in PH 3 would be larger than in NH 3 , whereas it is in fact considerably smaller, which is entirely consistent with ligand close packing (LCP) and the small size of the hydrogen ligand. Indeed, the ligand radius enables bond angles to be predicted quantitatively if the bond length is known, whereas the VSEPR model can only make qualitative predictions. It has long been recognized that steric effects between large nearby groups, in particular geminal groups, can be of importance in determining molecular geometry and reaction rates and mechanisms. However, the effect of steric interactions between vicinal atoms or groups has not been so widely recognized. Several authors have maintained that such interactions may be of considerable importance in determining molecular geometry, although this topic has generally only been discussed in terms of the valence bond theory or the VSEPR model. The purpose of this paper is to review previous relevant work and to review and extend our recent work, which provides strong evidence for the importance of the interaction between vicinal ligands (ligand–ligand repulsion) in determining molecular geometry. This evidence led to the development of the LCP model. .

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.

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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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