Tests for aromaticity applied to the pentalenoquinones A computational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Criteria for aromaticity and antiaromaticity were applied to the four pentalenoquinones, 1,2-, 1,5-, 1,4-, and 1,6-pentalenoquinone, i.e., bicyclo[3.3.0]octa-4,6,8-triene-2,3-dione (7a), bicyclo[3.3.0]octa-3,5,8-triene-2,7-dione (7b), bicyclo[3.3.0]octa-1(5),3,7-triene-2,6-dione (7c), and bicyclo[3.3.0]octa-1(5),3,6-triene-2,8-dione (7d). Geometry optimizations and frequency calculations were done with the pBP/DN* DFT method as implemented in Spartan, and single-point HF/3-21G calculations to obtain Löwdin bond orders (Spartan), as well as HF/6-31G* NICS calculations (Gaussian 98) were also carried out. Geometries and bond orders, chemical hardness, and NICS values gave no definite indication of aromatic or antiaromatic character. However, homodesmotic ring-opening reactions to give acyclic analogues indicated that 7a and 7b are nonaromatic (resonance energies 11 and 5 kJ mol1) while 7c and 7d are antiaromatic (resonance energies 83 and 54 kJ mol1). The resonance energies were obtained with the aid of an estimate of the strain energy of the molecules 7 (86 kJ mol1) by a novel extrapolation procedure on hydropentalenes. Calculated pBP/DN* activation energies for DielsAlder reactions with ethyne and ethene placed 7a and 7b in an "unreactive" class similar to 1,3-butadiene and fulvene, and 7c and 7d in a "reactive" class, similar to cyclopentadienone.Key words: aromaticity, pentalenoquinones, DFT, hardness, NICS, homodesmotic, resonance energy, bicyclo[3.3.0]octatrienediones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".