The role of the Lewis acid−base properties in the supramolecular association of 1,2,5-chalcogenadiazoles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The secondary bonding interactions that link the supramolecular structures assembled by 1,2,5-chalcogenadiazoles were analyzed through explicit orthogonalization of molecular orbitals (NBO), topological analysis of the electron density (AIM), and the electron localization function (ELF). The results of these analyses are consistent with a bonding description that attributes important covalent and electrostatic character to these interactions. Application of these analyses to the individual molecules highlighted the structural features from which each of those contributions originates, namely the polarity and modest strength of the E–N bond. Both of these effects increase along the series S, Se, Te. Perturbations to the heterocycle electronic structure that result in a weaker and more polar E–N bond cause an increase in the Lewis acidity at the chalcogen centre, which in turn leads to stronger secondary bonding interactions with Lewis bases. Additionally, the contribution of dispersion forces is not negligible and is most important in the case of sulfur.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".