Nanoscale Dodecahedral and Fullerene-Type Organoboroxine and Borazine Cages from Planar Building Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Boroxine- and borazine-cage analogs to C 20, C 60, and C 70 were calculated and compared in terms of structure, strain indicators, and physical properties relevant to nanoscale applications. The results show C 60 and C 70 type cages are less strained than the smaller congener, primarily due to minimized bending in the B-arylene-B segments. The smallest cage calculated has a diameter of 2.4 nm, which increases up to 4.9 nm by either variation of the polyhedron (C 20 < C 60 < C 70 -type cage) or organic spacer elongation between boron centers. All calculated cages are porous (apertures ranging from 0.6 to 1.9 nm). Molecular electrostatic potential and Hirshfeld population analysis revealed both nucleophilic and electrophilic sites in the interior and exterior cage surfaces. HOMO–LUMO gaps range from 3.98 to 4.89 eV and 5.10–5.18 eV for the boroxine- and borazine-cages, respectively. Our findings provide insights into the design and properties of highly porous boroxine and borazine cages for nanoscience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".