MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090814909 · doi:10.1021/jp052769+

The Degree of Rotation Independence of Conjugation of S−N Bonds

2005· article· en· W2090814909 on OpenAlexaff
Lijie Wang, Paul G. Mezey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Reaction Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelocalized electronChemistryBasis setAtomic orbitalComputational chemistryConformational isomerismSingle bondRotation (mathematics)CoplanarityDensity functional theoryValence (chemistry)Molecular physicsSulfurCrystallographyAtomic physicsChemical physicsMoleculeElectronMathematicsQuantum mechanicsPhysicsGeometryGroup (periodic table)Organic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electron delocalization in pi-electron systems is frequently described qualitatively by the concept of conjugation between formal double bonds separated by a formal single bond. In carbon compounds the optimum conjugation usually requires a rather strict, geometrical condition: the exact or near coplanarity of the participating carbon atoms. However, the geometrical conditions are much less strict for third-row atoms if the bonding involves valence-shell d orbitals. In some sulfur compounds, such as N-sulfonylsulfilimines, the conjugation is almost unaffected within large ranges of bond-rotation angles, which amounts to rotation-independent conjugation. On the basis of the indications of earlier, limited studies using only minimal basis set and no geometry optimization, in the more extensive present study Density Functional Theory B3LYP calculations using 6-31G basis set provide more reliable evidence for such flexible conjugation in some sulfur compounds and give an explanation for the experimentally observed interconversion of chiral conformers of N-sulfonylsulfilimines.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicChemical Reaction MechanismsFrench-language works237,207