MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507005556 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2016-0293

Computational study of the threshold energy for the 1,2-interchange of X and R (X, R = halogens, pseudohalogens, and monovalent hydrocarbon groups) on CH<sub>2</sub>XCH<sub>2</sub>R

2016· article· en· W2507005556 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ju‐Sung Kim, Laura M. Brandt, George L. Heard, Bert E. Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryHalogenIsomerizationLone pairTransition stateHydrocarbonBasis setStereochemistryComputational chemistryCrystallographyMedicinal chemistryMoleculeDensity functional theoryAlkylOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transition state geometries and threshold energies, E0, were computed for an unusual unimolecular isomerization reaction that exchanges two groups (X, R) on CH2XCH2R. An objective is to determine the most energetically feasible interchanges to guide experimental investigations. The interchanging species included halogens (F, Cl, Br) and pseudohalogens and monovalent hydrocarbons (H, SH, CH3, NH2, OH, OCF3, OCH3, CH=CH2, CH2CH3, CH2OH, C≡CH, CH2CF3, CCl3, CF3) attached to a two carbon backbone. Ground state and transition state geometries were optimized with the B3PW91 level of theory and 6-311+G(2d,p) basis set. The Br–Br interchange had the lowest E0 (141 kJ/mol), and CH3–H had the highest E0 (582 kJ/mol). In general, larger atoms or groups with lone pairs of electrons such as halogens, SH, OH, OCH3, OCF3, and NH2 tend to lower the E0 barrier for interchange, making them the most likely to be experimentally observed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207