Design of Molecular Building Blocks for the Development of Nickel(II)‐Chelating Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The affinity of the pentaaqua Ni 2+ cation for 16 neutral ligands with distinct functional groups was analyzed with the DFT method. The metal‐ligand binding strength was calculated by the interaction enthalpy and Gibbs free energy for the exchange of a water molecule from the [Ni(H 2 O) 6 ] 2+ by a neutral ligand. Geometrical, electric and energetic features of the isolated ligands and the complexes were correlated with the intensity of binding. All the substitution enthalpies and Gibbs free energies are negative, showing exothermic and spontaneous processes. The affinity order is P=O > C=N > C=S > C=O > C−N > C−S > C−O ligands. The EDA calculation reveals that the ionic and the covalent terms are both important in determining the interaction order strength. The electrostatic term is the most relevant for modulating the metal cation interaction. The electric nature of each ligand dictates the metal‐ligand bonding strength. Ligands containing the phosphate group have the strongest interaction with the Ni 2+ aquacation and are indicated to be the structural anchoring blocks of chelation agents for aquatic resources decontamination.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".