MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605819888 · doi:10.1039/c7fd00076f

Probing covalency in halogen bonds through donor K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy: polyhalides as coordination complexes

2017· article· en· W2605819888 on OpenAlexafffund
Chantal L. Mustoe, Mathusan Gunabalasingam, Darren Yu, Brian O. Patrick, Pierre Kennepohl

Bibliographic record

VenueFaraday Discussions · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityVancouver Biotech (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsX-ray absorption spectroscopyHalogenChemistryCovalent bondHalogen bondCrystallographyHydrogen bondAbsorption spectroscopySpectroscopyAbsorption (acoustics)Chemical bondCoordination numberIonMoleculeMaterials sciencePhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

materials (where X = Cl, Br) are explored using donor K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) to experimentally determine the degree of charge transfer in such XB interactions. The degree of covalency in these bonds is substantial, even in cases where significantly weaker secondary interactions are observed. These data, in concert with previous work in this area, suggests that certain halogen bonds have covalent contributions to bonding that are similar to, and even exceed, those observed in transition metal coordinate bonds. For this reason, we suggest that XB interactions of this type be denoted in a similar way to coordination bonds (X → Y) as opposed to using a representation that is the same as for significantly less covalent hydrogen bonds (XY).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaraday DiscussionsSame topicCrystallography and molecular interactionsFrench-language works237,207