Quenching mechanism of 5BDTC by aniline using Stern–Volmer plots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quenching mechanism of 5,6-benzo-3-[1-(4,5-dicarbomethoxy-1,2,3-triazoloacetyl)] coumarin (5BDTC) by aniline using Stern–Volmer plots in six different solvents, namely, 1,4 dioxane, dimethyl formamide, dichloromethane, toluene, tetrahydrofuran, and acetonitrile. The Stern–Volmer plots are found to be nonlinear with a positive deviation in all six solvents. To interpret these results we have invoked ground-state complex formation and sphere of action static quenching models. Using these models, various quenching rate parameters have been determined. The magnitudes of these parameters suggest that the sphere of action static quenching model agrees well with the experimental results. Hence, the positive deviation is attributed to the static and dynamic quenching. Further, with the use of the finite sink approximation model, it was possible to check these bimolecular reactions as diffusion-limited and to estimate independently distance parameter R′ and mutual diffusion coefficient D. Finally an effort has been made to correlate the values of R′ and D with the values of the encounter distance R and the mutual coefficient D determined using Edward’s empirical relation and the Stokes–Einstein relation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".