MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389782208 · doi:10.1039/d3cs00765k

Ligand-enforced geometric constraints and associated reactivity in p-block compounds

2023· review· en· W4389782208 on OpenAlexafffund
Tyler J. Hannah, Saurabh S. Chitnis

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Society Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganometallic Complex Synthesis and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDalhousie UniversityAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsReactivity (psychology)Block (permutation group theory)Ligand (biochemistry)Group (periodic table)ChemistryComputational chemistryMathematicsCombinatoricsOrganic chemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geometry at an element centre can generally be predicted based on the number of electron pairs around it using valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) theory. Strategies to distort p-block compounds away from these predicted geometries have gained considerable interest due to the unique structural outcomes, spectroscopic properties or reactivity patterns engendered by such distortion. This review presents an up-to-date group-wise summary of this exciting and rapidly growing field with a focus on understanding how the ligand employed unlocks structural features, which in turn influences the associated reactivity. Relevant geometrically constrained compounds from groups 13-16 are discussed, along with selected stoichiometric and catalytic reactions. Several areas for advancement in this field are also discussed. Collectively, this review advances the notion of geometric tuning as an important lever, alongside electronic and steric tuning, in controlling bonding and reactivity at p-block centres.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations75
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Society ReviewsSame topicOrganometallic Complex Synthesis and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207