1,3 Geminal Interactions as the Possible Trend Setting Factors for C−H and C−C Bond Energies in Alkanes. Support from a Density Functional Theory Based Bond Energy Decomposition Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bond energy decomposition analysis has been carried out to rationalize the well-established experimental fact that C-C and C-H bond energies decrease with increasing substitution on the carbon. It is shown that this trend is set by steric 1,3 repulsive interactions (geminal repulsion) that increase in the order 1,3 hydrogen-hydrogen < 1,3 hydrogen-carbon < 1,3 carbon-carbon. On the other hand, the radical stabilization energy has little influence on the observed trend for the C-H bond energy in H-CR(1)R(2)R(3) or the C-C bond energy in H(3)C-CR(1)R(2)R(3). Thus, it varies in H-CR(1)R(2)R(3) from -7.2 kcal/mol (H-CH3) to -6.5 kcal/mol (H-C(CH3)3) and in H(3)C-CR(1)R(2)R(3) from -19.0 kcal/mol (H(3)C-CH(3)) to -16.9 kcal/mol (H(3)C-C(CH(3))(3)). It was further found that the average intrinsic C-H bond energy in H-CR(1)R(2)R(3) of 129.2 kcal/mol is smaller than the average intrinsic C-C bond energy in H(3)C-CR(1)R(2)R(3) of 143.4 kcal/mol. However, after the inclusion of steric effects, the overall C-H bond becomes stronger than the C-C bond. The role of steric 1,3 repulsive interactions as the trend setting factor has most recently been suggested by Gronert (J. Org. Chem. 2006, 71, 1209) based on an empirical fit of alkane atomization energies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".