Crystal structure, Hirshfeld surface analysis and DFT studies of ethyl 2-{4-[(2-ethoxy-2-oxoethyl)(phenyl)carbamoyl]-2-oxo-1,2-dihydroquinolin-1-yl}acetate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The title compound, C24H24N2O6, consists of ethyl 2-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-2-oxoquinolin-1-yl)acetate and 4-[(2-ethoxy-2-oxoethyl)(phenyl)carbomoyl] units, where the oxoquinoline unit is almost planar and the acetate substituent is nearly perpendicular to its mean plane. In the crystal, C—HOxqn...OEthxand C—HPhyl...OCarbx(Oxqn = oxoquinolin, Ethx = ethoxy, Phyl = phenyl and Carbx = carboxylate) weak hydrogen bonds link the molecules into a three-dimensional network sturucture. A π–π interaction between the constituent rings of the oxoquinoline unit, with a centroid–centroid distance of 3.675 (1) Å may further stabilize the structure. Both terminal ethyl groups are disordered over two sets of sites. The ratios of the refined occupanies are 0.821 (8):0.179 (8) and 0.651 (18):0.349 (18). The Hirshfeld surface analysis of the crystal structure indicates that the most important contributions for the crystal packing are from H...H (53.9%), H...O/O...H (28.5%) and H...C/C...H (11.8%) interactions. Weak intermolecular hydrogen-bond interactions and van der Waals interactions are the dominant interactions in the crystal packing. Density functional theory (DFT) geometric optimized structures at the B3LYP/6-311G(d,p) level are compared with the experimentally determined molecular structure in the solid state. The HOMO–LUMO molecular orbital behaviour was elucidated to determine the energy gap.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".