Using Systematic Comparisons\nof 2D and 3D Structures\nTo Reveal Principles of Molecular Organization. Tetraesters of Linear\nBisisophthalic Acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear bisisophthalic acids <b>1</b> and <b>2</b> and\nanalogous structures are known to be adsorbed on graphite\nto give nanopatterns that are programmed by the concerted effects\nof topology and hydrogen bonding. For comparison, we have now studied\nthe corresponding tetraesters <b>3</b>–<b>7</b>, which have similar topologies and affinities for graphite but cannot\nform strong intermolecular interactions. As a result, they fail to\ncrystallize in 2D and 3D according to consistent patterns. The sharply\ncontrasting behavior of the tetraacids and tetraesters provides compelling\nevidence for the hypothesis that molecular organization is best controlled\nin both 2D and 3D by using topology and strong directional interactions\nin tandem to control the relative orientation of neighbors. When topology\nand dominant intermolecular interactions are in harmony, then organization\ncan be expected to follow reliable patterns within a related series\nof compounds, and structures in 2D and 3D can be designed to show\nhigh levels of homology.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".