MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120409841 · doi:10.1039/c0cs00022a

Mastering fundamentals of supramolecular design with carboxylic acids. Common lessons from X-ray crystallography and scanning tunneling microscopy

2010· review· en· W2120409841 on OpenAlexafffund
Oleksandr Ivasenko, Dmitrii F. Perepichka

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Society Reviews · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Chemistry and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSupramolecular chemistryCatenaneHydrogen bondNanotechnologyCrystal engineeringChemistrySoft materialsScanning tunneling microscopeMaterials scienceMoleculeCrystallographyCrystal structureOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrogen bonding is one of the most important non-covalent interactions in both biological (DNA, peptides, saccharides etc.) and artificial systems (various soft materials, host-guest architectures, molecular networks, etc.). Carboxylic acids are some of the most simple yet powerful hydrogen-bonding building blocks, that possess a particularly rich supramolecular chemistry. This tutorial review focuses on the structural diversity of supramolecular architectures accessible via hydrogen bonding of carboxylic acids, as observed both in single crystals using X-ray analysis and in monolayers on surfaces using scanning probe techniques. It provides a concise overview of the key concepts and principles of modern supramolecular design and is given in the form of case studies of finely selected literature examples, covering formation of macrocycles, chains, ladders, rotaxanes, catenanes, various 2D and 3D nets, host-guest systems and some applications thereof.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations185
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Society ReviewsSame topicSurface Chemistry and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207