Structure, Dynamics and Ordering in Structure I Ether Clathrate Hydrates from Single-Crystal X-ray Diffraction and <sup>2</sup>H NMR Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structure and dynamics of trimethylene oxide (TMO) and ethylene oxide (EO) structure I (sI) hydrates are reported from single-crystal X-ray diffraction and 2H NMR spectroscopic measurements. The guest molecule positions in the large cage were determined with considerable improvement over previous diffraction work so that a dynamic model that was consistent with these orientations could be developed to explain the 2H NMR data. Reorientations are shown to take place among both symmetry-related and symmetry-independent sites, 16 positions in all. Because of the prochiral nature of the molecules, both guests show 2H NMR line shapes with large asymmetry parameters, rather unusual for guest molecules in the sI hydrate large cage. The results also show that the dipolar axis of the TMO molecule lies close to the 4 bar axis of the cage on average, whereas for EO, this is not the case. For TMO, progressive alignment of the polar axis with decrease of temperature then allows the dipoles to interact more strongly until dipole reversal is quenched at the ordering transition. The lack of ordering of EO is consistent with the much weaker alignment of the molecular dipoles along the 4 bar axis. With the new complementary information on the structure and dynamics from crystallography and NMR, it is possible to understand why the large cage guests order in the large cage of sI hydrate for TMO hydrate but not for EO hydrate.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".