MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166170098 · doi:10.1002/chem.201302959

Synthesis and Theoretical Investigation of a 1,8‐Bis(bis(diisopropylamino)cyclopropeniminyl)naphthalene Proton Sponge Derivative

2013· article· en· W2166170098 on OpenAlexafffund
Lee Belding, Travis Dudding

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry - A European Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and Properties of Aromatic Compounds
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersBrock UniversityMcMaster UniversityRyerson University
KeywordsProtonationNaphthaleneChemistryProtonDerivative (finance)AromaticitySpongeCrystal structureProton affinityComputational chemistryProton NMRCrystallographyStereochemistryMedicinal chemistryMoleculeOrganic chemistryIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report herein the synthesis and characterization of a new proton sponge derivative, 1,8-bis(bis(diisopropylamino)cyclopropeniminyl)naphthalene 4 (DACN), as well as its bis-protonated counterpart 6. A crystal structure of 6 is presented, along with variable temperature (1)H NMR data on the BF4(-) salt (6⋅BF4). DFT calculations were performed to investigate the structure of the monoprotonated species 7 and to gain insight into the structural and electronic nature of all three species. The proton affinity (PA) of 4, calculated at the B3LYP/6-311G++(d,p)//B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) level, taking into account thermal corrections from the B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) method, was 282.3 kcal mol(-1), while its pKa was estimated at 27.0. NICS calculations were performed to examine the changes in aromaticity within these systems upon each successive protonation. Lastly, homodesmotic reaction schemes were used in order to estimate the factors contributing to the strong PA predicted for 4.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry - A European JournalSame topicSynthesis and Properties of Aromatic CompoundsFrench-language works237,207