Structural Similarity of Hydrogen-Bonded Networks in Crystals of Isomeric Pyridyl-Substituted Diaminotriazines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crystals of isomeric pyridyl-substituted diaminotriazines 1a − c and elongated analogues 2a − b were grown under various conditions, and their structures were solved by X-ray crystallography. Analysis of the structures revealed three shared features: (1) The compounds favor flattened conformations; (2) they participate in approximately coplanar hydrogen bonding according to motifs characteristic of diaminotriazines; and (3) these interactions play a key role in directing molecular organization. Together, the consistent molecular topologies and the shared presence of a dominant site of association ensure that the compounds crystallize similarly to give structures that feature chains, tapes, and layers. In certain cases, in fact, the molecular organization adopted by different pyridyl-substituted diaminotriazines is virtually identical, even when the length of the molecule or the orientation of the pyridyl group has been changed. Together, these observations show how functional groups such as diaminotriazinyl, which can control association by forming multiple directional intermolecular interactions according to reliable patterns, can be incorporated within more complex molecular structures to determine how crystallization will occur.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".