MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048018681 · doi:10.1021/ic061599s

Density Functional Study of Lithium Hexamethyldisilazide (LiHMDS) Complexes:  Effects of Solvation and Aggregation

2007· article· en· W2048018681 on OpenAlexafffund
Svetlana Popenova, Robert C. Mawhinney, Georg Schreckenbach

Bibliographic record

VenueInorganic Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCoordination Chemistry and Organometallics
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistrySolvationTetramerDimerTrimerMonomerLithium (medication)MoleculeSolventComputational chemistryImplicit solvationOrganic chemistryPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The title compound, lithium hexamethyldisilazide (LiHMDS), has been studied using modern quantum-chemical methods in the form of the B3LYP approach. Monomers, dimers, trimers, and tetramers, microsolvated with up to four THF molecules have been considered. The choice of model complex is seen to be important-for instance, the simpler water molecule is shown to be an inappropriate substitute for the THF solvent. Calculated lithium NMR shieldings are reported, but by themselves, they seem to be insufficient for unequivocal assignments of the different species. The energetics of aggregation and solvation have been studied. Temperature effects are seen to be important, and the degrees of solvation and aggregation are higher at 0 K than at 298 K. The highest degree of THF solvation for the monomer and dimer is found to be three (0 K) and two (298 K), respectively. The highest possible degree of aggregation for unsolvated LiHMDS is four. However, in nonpolar solvents, formation of the LiHDMS dimer from the trimer is thermodynamically preferred. The pathway is likely to involve an intermediate tetramer. In THF solution, di-solvated monomers and dimers are the most likely species.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInorganic ChemistrySame topicCoordination Chemistry and OrganometallicsFrench-language works237,207