MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899966021 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2018-0407

Inside-protonated 1-azaadamantane: computational studies on the structure, stability, and generation

2018· article· en· W2899966021 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Cory S. Beshara, Gennady V. Shustov

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Reaction Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
FundersUniversidad del ValleWestern Canada Research GridCompute CanadaUniversity of the Fraser Valley
KeywordsChemistryProtonationIonCounterionHydrogen bondComputational chemistryProton affinityDensity functional theoryCrystallographyTransition stateProtonBond cleavageFluoridePhotochemistryStereochemistryMoleculeCatalysisInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post Hartree–Fock and density functional theory methods have been employed to study inside-protonated 1-azaadamantane 7 and its complexes with the fluoride counterion (contact ion pairs) 10 and 11. The study also involved 1-azaadamantane 4, its outside-protonated form 8, and 1-azaadamantane radical cation 17. Inside-protonated 1-azaadamantane 7 is more than 82 kcal mol−1less stable than out-isomer 8. The repulsive interaction between the internal N+–H group and the azaadamantane cage and a substantial deformation of this cage greatly weaken the C–N and C–C bonds and, consequently, lead to a low kinetic stability of in-ion 7 in the studied unimolecular and bimolecular reactions involving the removal of the encapsulated proton from the cage. Among these reactions, a 7 → 8 rearrangement through a reversible cage opening at the C–N bond was found to be the main transformation channel ([Formula: see text] < 16 kcal mol−1) for in-ion 7. This rearrangement can be catalyzed by an external base, e.g., the fluoride anion. A 1,4-hydrogen migration in 1-azaadamantane radical cation 17 as a possible pathway to the inside-protonated 1-azaadamantane 7 was explored. It was found that this process has a prohibitively high activation barrier, [Formula: see text] > 104 kcal mol−1, and is not able to compete with the α-C–C cleavage of the azaadamantane cage ([Formula: see text] < 26 kcal mol−1).

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicChemical Reaction MechanismsFrench-language works237,207