MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376143567 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2022-0222

The prospects of cation transfer to chalcogen nucleophiles

2023· article· en· W4376143567 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bun Chan, Seiji Shirakawa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganic Chemistry Cycloaddition Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleophileChemistryChalcogenAffinitiesCatalysisSolvationComputational chemistryIonStereochemistryCrystallographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we used computational quantum chemistry to investigate the cation affinity for a range of nucleophiles to gauge the possibility of using organochalcogens as catalysts for cation transfer (reference data and geometries are provided in the repository https://github.com/armanderch/ca176 ). In general, the calculated gas-phase cation affinities decrease in the order Cl+ > Br+ > I+ > carbon-centered cation, the anionic nucleophiles have significantly larger cation affinities than the neutral ones, sulfides have larger cation affinities than selenides, and solvation lowers the cation affinities and especially for anionic nucleophiles. These observations are consistent with general chemical intuitions. The energies for the resulting condensed-phase cation transfer reactions show that transferring a carbon-centered cation from a neutral source (e.g., Me2CO3) to a chalcogen nucleophile (e.g., Me2S) is thermochemically viable. However, they are associated with large kinetic barriers. Overall, we find that SeMeC6H5 may be a suitable catalyst for transferring a carbon-centered cation from an active source such as MeCO3R or MeSO4R. In this study, we also find that double-hybrid DFT methods, e.g., DSD-PBEP86 to be reasonable for the study of these cation transfer processes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicOrganic Chemistry Cycloaddition ReactionsFrench-language works237,207