Macroscopically chiral system of three independent orientational effects as a condition for absolute asymmetric synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper introduces the concept of using three independent, macroscopic factors affecting mutual orientation of the reactant molecules to accomplish absolute asymmetric synthesis. Unlike with other methodologies of asymmetric synthesis in physical fields, none of the utilized factors is chiral in itself (as, e.g., circularly polarized light would be), but the combination of the three constitutes a macroscopically chiral influence. Examples of applicable directional factors are time-even vector fields (e.g., electric field and the directional effects of surfaces and interfaces) and the time-odd directional transport with encounter control. The directional factors employed may act simultaneously or, if their effect can be preserved, consecutively, thus allowing, e.g., a repeat use of the electric field. The electric field strength needed to achieve a practically useful degree of molecular orientation was estimated to be ca. 3 MV/cm, which is now commonly achieved with organic materials in the area of nonlinear optics. Practical implications are discussed, as well as the implications for the origins of natural homochirality.Key words: macroscopic chirality, absolute asymmetric synthesis, homochirality, physical fields.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".