Factors Affecting the Formation of 2:1 Host:Guest Inclusion Complexes of 2-[(R-Phenyl)amine]-1,4-naphthalenediones (PAN) in β- and γ-Cyclodextrins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The molecular hosts cyclodextrins form inclusion complexes with a wide variety of guests, resulting in complexes with various host:guest stoichiometries. In the case of a series of 19 1,4-naphthoquinolines as guests with either β- or γ-cyclodextrin studied using electrospray mass spectroscopy, in most cases only 1:1 complexes were observed, with 2:1 host:guest complexes observed in just 6 out of 38 host:guest combinations. It is shown that these higher-order complexes were observed only in the case of small (or no) electronically withdrawing substituents, and were much less likely in the case of the larger γ-cyclodextrin host. The size and electronic properties of the substituents involved shows that both steric and electronic factors must be taken into account in predicting which cyclodextrin host:guest stoichiometries will be stable enough to form (or once formed, be robust enough to be observed in the ESI-MS experiments). It is clear that the prediction of host-guest stoichiometry for a specific host-guest pair is complicated, and involves a subtle interplay of both electronic and steric factors. However, there are definite trends, which can be used to help predict host:guest stoichiometry for a given host-guest pair.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".