MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739327913 · doi:10.1098/rsta.2017.0004

On the concept of frustrated Lewis pairs

2017· review· en· W2739327913 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganoboron and organosilicon chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrustrated Lewis pairLewis acids and basesSteric effectsReactivity (psychology)ChemistryElectron pairPhysicsStereochemistryOrganic chemistryCatalysisQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this concept article, we consider the notion of 'frustrated Lewis pairs' (FLPs). While the original use of the term referred to steric inhibition of dative bond formation in a Lewis pair, work in the intervening decade demonstrates the limitation of this simplistic view. Analogies to known transition metal chemistry and the applications in other areas of chemistry are considered. In the light of these findings, we present reflections on the criteria for a definition of the term 'frustrated Lewis pair'. Segregation of the Lewis acid and base and the kinetic nature of FLP reactivity are discussed. We are led to the conclusion that, while an all-inclusive definition of FLP is challenging, the notion of 'FLP chemistry' is more readily recognized.This article is part of the themed issue 'Frustrated Lewis pair chemistry'.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.235 · 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