MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791238091 · doi:10.1002/ange.201800636

Ein weiterer “unerhörter” Wieland‐Mechanismus bestätigt: Wasserstoffbildung aus Wasserstoffperoxid, Formaldehyd und Natriumhydroxid

2018· article· de· W2791238091 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Czochara, Grzegorz Litwinienko, Hans‐Gert Korth, K. U. Ingold

Bibliographic record

VenueAngewandte Chemie · 2018
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNarodowe Centrum Nauki
KeywordsChemistryMedicinal chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 1923 berichteten Wieland und Wingler, dass an der Wasserstoff‐produzierenden Reaktion von Wasserstoffperoxid mit Formaldehyd in basischer Lösung keine freien Wasserstoffatome (H.) beteiligt sind. Sie postulierten als Zwischenstufe Bis(hydroxymethyl)peroxid (HOCH2OOCH2OH), das anschließend in H2 und Formiat zerfällt und schlugen einen Mechanismus vor, der heutzutage als “konzertierter Prozess” betrachtet würde. Seit dieser Zeit wurden verschiedene andere (widersprüchliche) “Mechanismen” vorgeschlagen. NMR‐ und Raman‐spektroskopische sowie kinetische Untersuchungen, speziell die Bestimmung des Deuterium‐kinetischen Isotopeneffekts (DKIE), belegen nun, dass in dieser basenabhängigen Reaktion beide H‐Atome im H2 von der CH2‐Gruppe des Formaldehyds stammen und nicht von den OH‐Gruppen von HOCH2OOCH2OH oder Wasser. Quantenchemische CBS‐QB3‐ und W1BD‐Rechnungen bestätigen, dass die H2‐Freisetzung über einen konzertierten Prozess verläuft, der durch doppelte Deprotonierung von HOCH2OOCH2OH stark beschleunigt wird. Ein Weg über freie Radikale kann ausgeschlossen werden.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAngewandte ChemieSame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207