MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328619525 · doi:10.1021/jp107972u

Tuning Aryl−CH···O Intermolecular Interactions on Pt(111)

2010· article· en· W2328619525 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Demers-Carpentier, Marc-André Laliberté, Yun‐Xiang Pan, G. Mahieu, Stéphane Lavoie, Guillaume Goubert, Bjørk Hammer, Peter H. McBreen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Chemistry and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCentre in Green Chemistry and Catalysis
KeywordsArylDimerChemistryIntermolecular forceScanning tunneling microscopeEnantioselective synthesisKetoneDensity functional theoryCrystallographyCatalysisStereochemistryComputational chemistryMoleculeOrganic chemistryMaterials scienceNanotechnologyAlkyl

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) data are reported for the room-temperature adsorption of 2,2,2-trifluoroacetophenone (TFAP), 2,2,2-trifluorovinylbenzene (TFVB), octafluoroacetophenone (OFAP), and methyl benzoate (MB) on Pt(111). The objective of the study is to establish the role of aryl−CH···O bonding in forming self-assembled low-nuclearity structures at room temperature and to compare aryl−CH···O bonding by ester and ketone carbonyl functions. The STM images clearly evidence the formation of homochiral dimers and trimers of TFAP, and density functional theory (DFT) calculations reveal aryl−CH···O bonding as the driving force for dimer formation. In contrast to TFAP, chemisorbed TFVB and OFAP do not form such self-assembled structures as they lack carbonyl and aryl−CH groups, respectively. The self-assembly of MB on Pt(111) differs from that of TFAP, in that it can form structures stabilized by one, as distinct from two, aryl−CH···O bonds. The results are discussed with respect to the enantioselective hydrogenation of α-ketoesters on cinchona modified Pt catalysts.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.220
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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