Expanding Cavitand Chemistry: The Preparation and Characterization of [n]Cavitands withn≥4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preparation of cavitands composed of 4, 5, 6, and 7 aromatic subunits ([n]cavitands, n=4-7) is described. The simple, two-step synthetic procedure utilized readily available starting materials (2-methylresorcinol and diethoxymethane). The two cavitand products having 4 and 5 aromatic subunits exhibited highly symmetric cone conformations, while the larger cavitands (n = 6 and 7) adopt conformations of lower symmetry. 1H NMR spectroscopic studies of [6]cavitand and [7]cavitand revealed that these hosts undergo exchange between equivalent conformations at room temperature. The departure of these two cavitands from cone conformations is related to steric crowding on their Ar-O-CH2-OAr bridges and is predicted by simple molecular mechanics calculations (MM2 force field). X-ray diffraction studies on single crystals of the [4]cavitand, [5]cavitand, and [6]cavitand hosts afforded additional experimental support for these conclusions.
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".