MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412167378 · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00313

A Problem-Based Introduction to Machine Learning in the Undergraduate Organic Chemistry Laboratory: Prediction of Diels–Alder Reaction Rates

2025· article· en· W4412167378 on OpenAlexaff
Ricky Tran, Valerie Brunskill, Amanda Musgrove, Todd C. Sutherland, Darren J. Derksen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiels–Alder reactionAlderChemistryComputer scienceOrganic chemistryMathematics educationMathematicsEcologyBiologyCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To engage students in higher-order thinking skills, an inquiry-based dry laboratory experience was developed for upper-year undergraduate students, where students were introduced to machine learning approaches to solve chemical problems. Students constructed their own data set of diene and dienophile features and performed a multivariate linear regression in a Python environment to predict the energy barriers (Δ G ‡ ) of a Diels–Alder system. They applied their models to a simulated drug development problem. Likert-scale surveys and qualitative interviews were utilized to collect data on student experiences. Students expressed that they felt strongly engaged in critical and creative thinking, collaboration, and metacognition. Subsequently, students felt that computational tools were more approachable, and had a stronger appreciation of how computational tools could be utilized in chemistry contexts. Students also expressed that they felt the freedom to make mistakes, reflect, and improve, embracing a growth mindset in this laboratory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.009

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EducationSame topicVarious Chemistry Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207