MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393950525 · doi:10.3390/molecules29071624

Chiral Jahn–Teller Distortion in Quasi-Planar Boron Clusters

2024· article· en· W4393950525 on OpenAlexafffund
Dongbo Zhao, Yilin Zhao, Tianlv Xu, Xin He, Shankai Hu, Paul W. Ayers, Shubin Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicBoron and Carbon Nanomaterials Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNanjing UniversityAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaYunnan UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBoronMolecular orbitalSpintronicsJahn–Teller effectChemical physicsPlanarMaterials scienceAtomic orbitalDistortion (music)Molecular physicsNanotechnologyCondensed matter physicsComputational chemistryCrystallographyChemistryMoleculePhysicsFerromagnetismIonOptoelectronicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we have observed that some chiral boron clusters (B16-, B20-, B24-, and B28-) can simultaneously have helical molecular orbitals and helical spin densities; these seem to be the first compounds discovered to have this intriguing property. We show that chiral Jahn-Teller distortion of quasi-planar boron clusters drives the formation of the helical molecular spin densities in these clusters and show that elongation/enhancement in helical molecular orbitals can be achieved by simply adding more building blocks via a linker. Aromaticity of these boron clusters is discussed. Chiral boron clusters may find potential applications in spintronics, such as molecular magnets.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicBoron and Carbon Nanomaterials ResearchFrench-language works237,207