MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330816441 · doi:10.1039/c6dt00771f

Chemical state determination of molecular gallium compounds using XPS

2016· article· en· W2330816441 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeremy L. Bourque, Mark C. Biesinger, Kim M. Baines

Bibliographic record

VenueDalton Transactions · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGalliumX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyOxidation stateChemistryValence (chemistry)Chemical stateAugerBinding energyAuger electron spectroscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Inorganic chemistryMetalAtomic physicsNuclear magnetic resonanceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of molecular gallium compounds were analyzed using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). Specifically, the Ga 2p3/2 and Ga 3d5/2 photoelectron binding energies and the Ga L3M45M45 Auger electron kinetic energies of compounds with gallium in a range of assigned oxidation numbers and with different stabilizing ligands were measured. Auger parameters were calculated and used to generate multiple chemical speciation (or Wagner) plots that were subsequently used to characterize the novel gallium-cryptand[2.2.2] complexes that possess ambiguous oxidation numbers for gallium. The results presented demonstrate the ability of widely accessible XPS instruments to experimentally determine the chemical state of gallium centers and, as a consequence, provide deeper insights into reactivity compared to assigned oxidation and valence numbers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations133
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDalton TransactionsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207