MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325892065 · doi:10.1021/cg200381f

Influence of the Flexibility of the Diimidazolium Cations on Their Organization into Crystalline Materials

2011· article· en· W2325892065 on OpenAlexaff
Loı̈c Leclercq, Andreea R. Schmitzer

Bibliographic record

VenueCrystal Growth & Design · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicIonic liquids properties and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupramolecular chemistryStackingHydrogen bondIonic bondingFlexibility (engineering)MoleculeChemistryCrystallographyCrystal (programming language)Crystal structureBromideChemical physicsCrystal engineeringIonInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diimidazolium cations self-assemble into molecular networks by electrostatic interactions and hydrogen bonds. To explore the influence of the molecular flexibility on the crystalline networks, three alkylene spacers [−(CH 2 ) n –, with n = 1, 2, or 3] have been investigated. Semiempirical PM6 methods were used to predict the most stable geometries of the dications and the formation of the H-bonds network. PM6 calculations provided a qualitative agreement with the obtained crystalline structures: The increase of the flexibility results in a more complex H-bond network. Surprisingly, a transition in the crystal organization occurs when n = 2. This transition represents a different organization from the classical packing of imidazolium salts (where the structure is hold together by ionic bonds and H-bonds), toward the formation of a well-defined supramolecular inclusion of bromide anions in the network only on one direction. For n = 3, novel architectures are formed by complementary π-stacking interactions that connect the diimidazolium cations together and by the inclusion of water molecules into the network.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrystal Growth & DesignSame topicIonic liquids properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207