MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331877940 · doi:10.1021/jp2118407

Effects of Carboxylate Anions on the Molecular Organization of H<sub>2</sub>O as Probed by 1-Propanol

2012· article· en· W2331877940 on OpenAlexaff
Takemi Kondo, Yuji Miyazaki, Akira Inaba, Yoshikata Koga

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarboxylateChemistryAlkylFormateHydrogen bondSolvation shellPropionateMoleculeCrystallographyPropanolHydrateSolvationInorganic chemistryMedicinal chemistryStereochemistryMethanolOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We characterized the effects of carboxylate anions, formate (OFm(-)), acetate (OAc(-)), and propionate (OPr(-)), on the molecular organization of liquid H(2)O by the 1-propanol (1P) probing methodology. The latter thermodynamic methodology provides two indices: one pertaining to the hydration number, n(H), and the other being related to the net increase/decrease of the entropy-volume cross fluctuation of the system. The results indicated that OFm(-) is a hydration center with n(H) = 1.2 ± 0.5 and leaves the bulk H(2)O away from the hydration shell unperturbed. We suggest that this single H(2)O hydrates preferentially one of the O's in the COO(-) group, showing the hydration center character. The values of n(H) for OAc(-) and OPr(-) were found to be 3.7 ± 0.8 and 9 ± 2, respectively, out of which one H(2)O molecule is used for hydrating the COO(-) side and the remaining 2.7 and 8 H(2)O molecules hydrate the respective alkyl group. Hence, OPr(-) is more hydrophobic than OAc(-) in terms of the hydration number. However, both alkyl moieties seem to equally retard the hydrogen bond probability of bulk H(2)O away from hydration shells around nonpolar sites, as much as the probing 1P does.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207