MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324625342 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b00380

Structure and Chirality in Sulfur-Containing Amino Acids Adsorbed on Au(111) Surfaces

2015· article· en· W2324625342 on OpenAlexafffund
Tatiana Popa, Irina Paci

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Chemistry and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsChirality (physics)EnantiomerChemistryMoleculeIntermolecular forceHydrogen bondChemical physicsStereochemistryComputational chemistryChiral symmetry breakingOrganic chemistrySymmetry breakingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chiral self-assembly is governed by a complex interplay between molecular asymmetry and intermolecular and molecule–substrate interactions. In this work, we examined extended systems of enantiomerically pure and racemic cysteine, homocysteine, and methionine and their self-assembly on Au(111), using a classical parallel tempering Monte Carlo approach. We found that, for all of the amino acids considered here, the Au(111) substrate provided insufficient configurational restriction to promote chiral recognition upon adsorption. Molecules tethered to the surface were able to sample a broad range of configurations, and form complex networks of hydrogen bonds. Upon dissociative adsorption, rosette structures and chains with small local enantiomeric excess were observed, while nondissociative processes led to formation of solution-type racemic aggregates. Given the important role played by the surface in the chiral recognition process, we propose that a four-step interaction model (Booth et al. Chirality 1997, 9, 96) is more appropriate for such systems than the more traditional three-point contact model.

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 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicSurface Chemistry and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207