The Quinones of Benzocyclobutadiene: A Computational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conventional (excluding non-Kekulé, singlet diradical structures) quinones of benzocyclobutadiene were studied computationally. Eight structures were examined, namely (based on the CA names for benzocyclobutenedione), benzocyclobutenedione or bicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1,3,5-triene-7,8-dione, bicyclo[4.2.0]octa-3,5,8-triene-2,7-dione, bicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1,4,6-triene-3,8-dione, bicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1(6),4,7-triene-2,3-dione, bicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1(8), 4,6-triene-2,3-dione, bicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1(6),3,7-triene-2,5-dione, bicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1(8),3,6-triene-2,5-dione, and bicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1,5,7-triene-3,4-dione (the question of resonance or tautomerism for the 2,3-dione pair and the 2,5-dione pair is considered). Using DFT (B3LYP/6-31G*) and ab initio (MP2/6-31G*) methods the geometries of the eight species were optimized, giving similar results for the two methods. The heats of formation of the quinones were calculated, placing them in low-energy (-17 kJ mol(-1), 7,8-dione), medium-energy (79-137 kJ mol(-1), 2,7-, 3,8-, and 3,4-diones), and high-energy (260-275 kJ mol(-1), 2,3- and 2,5-diones) groups. Diels-Alder reactivity as dienophiles with butadiene indicated the 2,7-, 3,8-, and particularly the 3,4-quinone may be relatively unreactive toward dimerization or polymerization and are attractive synthesis goals. Isodesmic ring-opening reactions and NICS calculations showed aromatic/nonaromatic properties to be essentially as expected from the presence of a benzene or cyclobutadiene ring. UV spectra, ionization energy electron affinity, and HOMO/LUMO energies were also calculated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".