A Scoring Model for Catalyst Informatics Based on Real-Time High-Throughput Fluorogenic Assay for Catalyst Discovery and Kinetic Profiling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we propose an automated, real-time optical scanning approach to assessing catalyst performance in the process of nitro-to-amine reduction using well-plate readers to monitor reaction progress. This approach takes advantage of a simple on–off fluorescence probe that gives a shift in absorbance and strong fluorescent signal when the non-fluorescent nitro-moiety is reduced to the amine form. The combination of an affordable probe and a low barrier-to-entry technique provides an accessible approach to high-throughput catalyst screening. Under this paradigm, we screened 114 different catalysts and compared them in terms of reaction completion times, material abundance, price, recoverability, and safety. Using a simple scoring system, we plotted the catalysts in terms of cumulative scores, along with some intentional biases, including an emphasis on preference for catalysts with potential as green catalysts, considering environmental issues and possible geopolitical preferences.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it