The formation mechanism and chirality evolution of chiral carbon dots prepared <i>via</i> radical assisted synthesis at room temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on a Cu(ii) catalyzed process for the production of cysteine based chiral carbon dots; the process does not require any thermal treatment and the carbon dot formation is driven by the production of reactive radical species that are generated in the reaction media by the catalytic role played by the multivalent transition metal. The nanomaterial presents a well-defined chirality and the enantioselectivity of the synthesis is proved by the isolation of both the carbon dot enantiomers. We focused our attention on the processes that take place during the carbon dot formation and the relationship with the structure of the organic starting material. Thanks to the comparison of reactions conducted with different organic substrates whose thiyl radical chemistry is known, we recognized a non-trivial role of the radical hydrogen abstraction reactions in the carbon dot formation process. The reported process allows access to a large variety of analyses to monitor the reaction mixtures during the reaction course. Finally, we report a detailed analysis on the evolution of optical chirality during the synthesis and related this feature with the formation mechanism of the nanomaterial revealing significant evidence on the chirality origin and structure of chiral carbon dots.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".