MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075504318 · doi:10.1021/jp061205i

Comparative Study of Weak Interactions in Molecular Crystals:  H−H Bonds vs Hydrogen Bonds

2006· article· en· W2075504318 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Wolstenholme, T. Stanley Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystal structures of chemical compounds
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogen bondChemistryMoleculeAzineBenzophenoneCrystallographyCrystal (programming language)Weak interactionCrystal structureComputational chemistryPhysicsPhotochemistryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crystal structures of tetraphenylphosphonium squarate, bianthrone, and bis(benzophenone)azine are shown to contain a variety of C-H(delta+)...(delta+)H-C interactions, as well as a variety of C-H...O and C-H...C(pi) interactions. Each of these molecules possesses interactions that can possibly be characterized as either H-H bonds or weak hydrogen bonds based on the first four criteria proposed by Koch and Popelier. These interactions have been completely characterized topologically after the multipole refinement of the structures. It appears that weak interactions of the form C-H(delta+)...(delta+)H-C possess certain correlations between the various properties of the electron density at the bond critical points. The coexistence of the three types of interactions makes it possible to establish similarities and differences in the correlations of these weak interactions. This all leads to a better understanding of H-H interactions and how they fit into the hierarchy of weak interactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations87
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicCrystal structures of chemical compoundsFrench-language works237,207