MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366602685 · doi:10.1002/chem.202301068

Interaction Modes Between SF<sub>4</sub> and Ketones; Study of Intermediates in Deoxofluorination Reactions

2023· article· en· W4366602685 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Stuart, Felix O’Donnell, Stacey D. Wetmore, Michael Gerken

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry - A European Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicInorganic Fluorides and Related Compounds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWestern Canada Research GridCompute CanadaUniversity of Lethbridge
KeywordsAdductChalcogenRaman spectroscopyChemistryCrystallographyDensity functional theoryKetoneStereochemistryMedicinal chemistryComputational chemistryOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Interactions between ketones and SF 4 are studied for the simplest ketone, acetone, and the bulky polycyclic 2‐adamantanone. Acetone forms the 1 : 2 adduct SF 4 ⋅ [O=C(CH 3 ) 2 ] 2, as well as the dimeric 1 : 1 adducts [SF 4 ⋅ O=C(CH 3 ) 2 ] 2 as identified by low‐temperature Raman spectroscopy and, for the latter, X‐ray crystallography. In both adducts, SF 4 acts as a double chalcogen‐bond donor to two keto groups. In contrast 2‐adamantanone does not form an isolable solid adduct with SF 4 ; in the presence of HF, however, it forms SF 4 ⋅ O=C 10 H 14 O ⋅ HF, which comprises chains with weak S—O and S—FH chalcogen bonds in the crystal structure. Sulfur tetrafluoride in this compound is readily lost at −85 °C, leading to the isolation of C 10 H 14 O ⋅ HF at low temperature. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations aid in vibrational assignments and serve to describe the interactions of the keto group with SF 4 and HF, as well as interactions between SF 4 with HF. It is found that separate and combined CO—HF and CO—SF 4 chalcogen bonds do not polarize the C=O group to any significant degree.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry - A European JournalSame topicInorganic Fluorides and Related CompoundsFrench-language works237,207