A Comparison of the Host–Guest Inclusion Complexes of 1,8-ANS and 2,6-ANS in Parent and Modified Cyclodextrins - Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fluorescent molecules1-anilinonaphthalene-8-sulfonate (1,8-ANS) and2-anilinonaphthalene-6-sulfonate (2,6-ANS) areextremely sensitive to the polarity of their localenvironment, making them excellent probes for thestudy of heterogeneous systems, including cyclodextrin(CD) solutions. Both are only weakly fluorescent in ahighly polar medium, such as water, but are extremelyfluorescent in a relatively nonpolar medium, such aswithin a CD cavity. These two probes are isomers, withmajor structural differences: 1,8-ANS is much bulkierand more spherical, whereas 2,6-ANS is much morestreamlined and rod-shaped. Thus, they show majordifferences in their formation of CD inclusioncomplexes. This is reflected both in the magnitude ofthe observed fluorescence enhancement upon CDinclusion, as well as in the value of the associationconstant for complex formation. The creation of ascale for each probe for their fluorescence in CDsrelative to that in ethanol allows for directcomparisons to be made between the two probes. Theseresults are obtained and compared for the host-guestinclusion complexes of 1,8-ANS and 2,6-ANS with sixCDs: α, β, γ, and theirhydroxypropylated analogs.
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".