MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059940463 · doi:10.1021/jp025812r

Melting Behavior of Crown Thioethers:  Correlation of Entropy Changes with Conformational Disorder

2002· article· en· W2059940463 on OpenAlexaff
Glen D. Rockwell, T. Bruce Grindley, K. Christopher Smith, Mary Anne White

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntropy of fusionDifferential scanning calorimetryFusionPhase transitionThermodynamicsEnthalpy of fusionSolid solutionConformational entropyEntropy (arrow of time)Melting pointMaterials scienceMelting temperatureCrystallographyPhase (matter)ChemistryOrganic chemistryMoleculePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have examined the following crown thioethers by differential scanning calorimetry from −90 °C, or lower, up to their melting points: 1,4,7-trithiacyclononane (9S3); 1,5,9-trithiacyclododecane (12S3); 1,4,7,10-tetrathiacyclododecane (12S4); 1,4,8,11-tetrathiacyclotetradecane (14S4); 1,4,7,10,13-pentathiacyclopentadecane (15S5); and 1,5,9,13-tetrathiacyclohexadecane (16S4). We have identified new solid−solid phase transitions above room temperature in 12S3, in the α-phase of 14S4, in 15S5, and in both the α-phase and β-phase of 16S4. Of those crown thioethers examined, only 9S3 and 12S4 do not show any solid−solid phase transitions. From an analysis of the entropy of fusion, we find that only the high-temperature solid phase of 16S4 is orientationally disordered. Analysis of the entropy changes associated with the solid−solid phase transitions and with fusion indicate that all except 12S4 have considerably more conformational freedom in the melt than in the room-temperature solid. Insight into these conformational changes is of considerable importance for understanding complexation of thioethers to metals.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicCrystallography and molecular interactionsFrench-language works237,207