Corannulene as a Lewis Base: Computational Modeling of Protonation and Lithium Cation Binding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A computational modeling of the protonation of corannulene at B3LYP/6-311G(d,p)//B3LYP/6-311G(d,p) and of the binding of lithium cations to corannulene at B3LYP/6-311G(d,p)//B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) has been performed. A proton attaches preferentially to one carbon atom, forming a sigma-complex. The isomer protonated at the innermost (hub) carbon has the best total energy. Protonation at the outermost (rim) carbon and at the intermediate (bridgehead rim) carbon is less favorable by ca. 2 and 14 kcal mol(-)(1), respectively. Hydrogen-bridged isomers are transition states between the sigma-complexes; the corresponding activation energies vary from 10 to 26 kcal mol(-)(1). With an empirical correction obtained from calculations on benzene, naphthalene, and azulene, the best estimate for the proton affinity of corannulene is 203 kcal mol(-)(1). The lithium cation positions itself preferentially over a ring. There is a small energetic preference for the 6-ring over the 5-ring binding (up to 2 kcal mol(-)(1)) and of the convex face over the concave face (3-5 kcal mol(-)(1)). The Li-bridged complexes are transition states between the pi-face complexes. Movement of the Li(+) cation over either face is facile, and the activation energy does not exceed 6 kcal mol(-)(1) on the convex face and 2.2 kcal mol(-)(1) on the concave face. In contrast, the transition of Li(+) around the corannulene edge involves a high activation barrier (24 kcal mol(-)(1) with respect to the lowest energy pi-face complex). An easier concave/convex transformation and vice versa is the bowl-to-bowl inversion with an activation energy of 7-12 kcal mol(-)(1). The computed binding energy of Li(+) to corannulene is 44 kcal mol(-)(1). Calculations of the (7)Li NMR chemical shifts and nuclear independent chemical shifts (NICS) have been performed to analyze the aromaticity of the corannulene rings and its changes upon protonation.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".