MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104545952 · doi:10.1139/v08-003

Role of solvent nucleophilicity in excess-acidity plots for equilibria in sulfuric acid – water mixtures

2008· article· en· W2104545952 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T. William Bentley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Reaction Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryNucleophileSulfuric acidSolvolysisCarbocationSolventProtonationInorganic chemistryBase (topology)Solvent effectsAcidity functionMedicinal chemistryOrganic chemistryAqueous solutionHydrolysisCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For protonation of a base B to give BH+ and for reaction of carbocations R+ with water to give ROH in a range of sulfuric acid – water mixtures, slopes of excess-acidity plots of equilibrium data are discussed. Formal connections between the excess-acidity approach and the Grunwald–Winstein (GW) and extended GW equations, noted previously by Bagno et al., are evaluated. It is proposed that a major factor is variations in the solvent dependence of the rates of reactions of the cations (BH+ or R+) with water in the sulfuric acid – water mixtures. Rates of reactions of more stable cations (e.g., Ph3C+) with water are more sensitive to changes in solvent nucleophilicity, and the lower nucleophilicity of the water in sulfuric acid – water mixtures leads to an increase in [BH+]/[B] or [R+]/[ROH] concentration ratios (and hence to greater slopes m* in excess-acidity plots).Key words: excess acidity, sulfuric acid, kinetics, solvent nucleophilicity, solvolysis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicChemical Reaction MechanismsFrench-language works237,207