Isotopic labelling in mass spectrometry as a tool for studying reaction mechanisms of ion dissociations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Perhaps the greatest influence that isotopic labelling experiments have had on organic mass spectrometry is that reaction mechanisms originally borrowed from the chemistry of neutral counterparts have proved to be inadequate for explaining the results. It was therefore necessary to devise completely new types of fragmentation mechanisms and unconventional structures for organic gas‐phase cations. In most cases the labelling technique allows one to discover the positions at which the label atoms are found in both the charged and neutral products of an ion's dissociation. These experimental results are often difficult to rationalize by any simple mechanism, but they nearly always indicate how chemical computations should be directed in order for the latter to be able to provide a better mechanistic understanding. This short article describes some significant studies involving D and 18‐O labelling that well support the above assertions, using as examples the behaviour of some quite simple organic molecules. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it