Cooperativity between the hydrogen bonding and <i>σ</i>-hole interaction in linear NCX<b>···</b>(NCH)<sub><i>n</i></sub><sub>=2–5</sub> and O<sub>3</sub>Z<b>···</b>(NCH)<sub><i>n</i></sub><sub>=2–5</sub> complexes (X = Cl, Br; Z = Ar, Kr): a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum chemical calculations are performed to investigate the cooperativity of hydrogen bonding with halogen or aerogen bonding interactions in linear NCX···(NCH)n=2–5 and O3Z···(NCH)n=2–5 clusters, where X = Cl, Br and Z = Ar, Kr. To understand the cooperativity mechanism in these systems, the corresponding binary NCX···NCH and O3Z···NCH complexes are also considered. The binding distances, interaction energies, and bonding properties of the NCX···(NCH)n=2–5 and O3Z···(NCH)n=2–5 clusters are analyzed in detail. It is found that the cooperative effects in the hydrogen bonding tend to strengthen X···N and Z···N interactions. For both NCX···(NCH)n and O3Z···(NCH)n clusters, a small bond shrinkage is observed from n = 4 to n = 5, which suggests that the cooperativity effects are almost saturated in the larger clusters (n > 5). As the size of the X or Z atom is increased, the magnitude of the cooperative energy in these systems is also increased, which is mainly ascribed to changes in electrostatic potentials and orbital interactions. Our results indicate that the cooperative effects lead to a substantial change in the 14N nuclear quadrupole coupling constants of the NCH molecule.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".