MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160082288 · doi:10.1139/v05-171

Influence of the number of water molecules on the mechanism of <i>N</i>-sulfinylaniline hydrolysis

2005· article· en· W2160082288 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Elena V. Ivanova, Heidi M. Muchall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Reaction Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsChemistryMoleculeHydrolysisEnthalpyProtonationHydrogen bondComputational chemistryReaction mechanismCrystallographyOrganic chemistryThermodynamicsCatalysisIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanism of the uncatalyzed hydrolysis of N-sulfinylaniline (Ph-N=S=O) has been studied with B3LYP/6-31+G(2d,2p) in the gas phase, with explicit treatment of water molecules. Hydrolysis involves water attack on sulfur, with a close to perpendicular alignment of a water molecule and the NSO plane in both prereaction complexes and transition states for the rate-determining step. Consequently, the distance of the weak S···O interaction, together with the efficiency of protonation of either nitrogen (attack across the N=S bond) or oxygen (attack across the S=O bond) atoms of the NSO group, determines the height of the activation barrier for hydrolysis. While the reaction with one water molecule is characterized by an unreasonably high enthalpy of activation, a cooperative effect from the weak interactions appears with the inclusion of a second water molecule, where both participate in the reaction, and the activation enthalpy drops significantly. The preference for attack across the S=O bond that is found in the reaction with one water molecule switches to a dominance of attack across the N=S bond in the reaction with three water molecules.Key words: N-sulfinylaniline, hydrolysis, mechanism, density functional theory (DFT).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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