MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229776770 · doi:10.1139/v00-117

An experimental and theoretical approach to the study of the properties of parabanic acid and related compounds: synthesis and crystal structure of diethylimidazolidine-2-selone-4,5-dione

2000· article· en· W4229776770 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Massimiliano Arca, Francesco Demartin, F.A. Devillanova, Francesco Isaia, Francesco Lelj, Vito Lippolis, G. Verani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMolecular Spectroscopy and Structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRegione BasilicataEuropean Commission
KeywordsChemistryNatural bond orbitalCrystal structureComputational chemistryCrystal (programming language)Atomic orbitalMolecular orbitalElectronic structureRaman spectroscopyCrystallographyMoleculeDensity functional theoryOrganic chemistryElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The syntheses of the first examples of selenoparabanic acid derivatives (dialkylimidazolidine-2-selone-4,5-dione, 3e R R = Me, Et, Bu) are presented along with the X-ray crystal structure determination of 3e Et . To gain an insight in the properties of parabanic acid derivatives on the basis of their electronic structures, we report the results of comparative hybrid-DFT calculations performed on parabanic, thioparabanic, and selenoparabanic acids (3a H , 3b H , and 3e H ) and on their N,N' -dimethyl derivatives (3a Me , 3b Me , and 3e Me ). Calculations show that the different nature of the frontier orbitals of 3a R compared to those of 3b R and 3e R , might account for the different reactivities of these compounds. Moreover, the weak donor character of 3b R and 3e R towards molecular di-iodine, estimated by FT-Raman measurements is in agreement with the calculated NBO-charge distribution.Key words: selenation, selenoparabanic derivatives, crystal structure, DFT calculations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicMolecular Spectroscopy and StructureFrench-language works237,207