MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505338331 · doi:10.1002/jcc.24452

Design of [2]rotaxane through image threshold segmentation of electrostatic potential image

2016· article· en· W2505338331 on OpenAlexaff
Pingying Liu, Qiufeng Chen, Jing Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSupramolecular Chemistry and Complexes
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
FundersNanjing UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRotaxaneImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceImage segmentationComputer visionSegmentationChemistryComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Materials scienceSupramolecular chemistryMoleculeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An electrostatic potential (ESP)-based image segmentation method has been used to estimate the ability of proton donation and acceptance involved in ring-rod recognition. The relative binding strength of [2]rotaxane has also been further estimated from the difference of the characteristic image-segmentation derived ESP between proton donor and proton acceptor. The size and electrostatic compatibility criteria are introduced to guide the design of interlocked [2]rotaxane. A library of 75 thermodynamically stable [2]rotaxane candidates has been generated, including 16 experimentally known systems. The theoretical results for 16 experimentally known [2]rotaxanes are in good agreement with both the experimental association constants and density functional theory-calculated binding energies. Our ESP-based image segmentation model is also applicable to the tristable [2]rotaxane molecular shuttle as well as [1]rotaxane with self-inclusion function, indicating this simple method is generic in the field of constructing other supramolecular architectures formed with donor/acceptor molecular recognition. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational ChemistrySame topicSupramolecular Chemistry and ComplexesFrench-language works237,207