MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772713983 · doi:10.1021/jacs.7b08516

Ultrastable Gold Nanoparticles Modified by Bidentate <i>N</i>-Heterocyclic Carbene Ligands

2017· article· en· W2772713983 on OpenAlexafffund
Renee W. Y. Man, Chien‐Hung Li, Michael W. A. MacLean, Olena V. Zenkina, Matthew T. Zamora, Lisa N. Saunders, Alexander Rousina‐Webb, Masakazu Nambo, Cathleen M. Crudden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicNanomaterials for catalytic reactions
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsDenticityCarbeneChemistryNanoparticleThermal stabilityAlkylationNanomaterialsThiolCombinatorial chemistryColloidal goldNanotechnologyOrganic chemistryCatalysisMetalMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highly stable gold nanoparticles (Au NPs) functionalized by bidentate N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) ligands have been synthesized by top-down and bottom-up approaches. A detailed study of the effect of alkylation, denticity, and method of synthesis has led to the production of NHC-stabilized nanoparticles with higher thermal stability than bi- and tridentate thiol-protected Au NPs and than monodentate NHC-stabilized NPs. Importantly, bidentate NHC-protected NPs also displayed unprecedented stability to external thiol, which has been an unsolved problem to date with all nanoparticles. Thus, multidentate NHC ligands are an important, and as yet unrecognized, step forward for the preparation of high stability nanomaterials.

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations190
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicNanomaterials for catalytic reactionsFrench-language works237,207