MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163854463 · doi:10.1002/anie.201505684

Ammonia–(Dinitramido)boranes: High‐Energy‐Density Materials

2015· article· en· W2163854463 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guillaume Bélanger‐Chabot, Martin Rahm, Ralf Haiges, Karl O. Christe

Bibliographic record

VenueAngewandte Chemie International Edition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefense Threat Reduction AgencyFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAmmonia boraneBoranesAmmoniaTrinitrotolueneExplosive materialPropellantChemistryOxidizing agentEnergetic materialNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyBoraneDetonationSpectroscopyOrganic chemistryHydrogenHydrogen storagePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two ammonia-(dinitramido)boranes were synthesized by the reaction of dinitroamine with ammonia-borane. These compounds are the first reported examples of (dinitramido)boranes. Ammonia-mono(dinitramido)borane is a perfectly oxygen-balanced high-energy-density material (HEDM) composed of an ammonia-BH2 fuel group and a strongly oxidizing dinitramido ligand. Although it is thermally not stable enough for practical applications, its predicted specific impulse as a solid rocket propellant would be 333 s. Its predicted performance as an explosive matches that of pentaerythtritol tetranitrate (PETN) and significantly exceeds that of trinitrotoluene (TNT). Its structure was established by X-ray crystallography and vibrational and multinuclear NMR spectroscopy. Additionally, the over-oxidized ammoniabis(dinitramido)borane was detected by NMR spectroscopy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations57
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAngewandte Chemie International EditionSame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207