“Recharging“ Group Electronegativities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group electronegativity (gEN) is a fundamental concept of chemistry, relating to acidity, chemical reactivity, activating groups, and protecting groups. Although several empirical and computational methods have been devised for determining gEN, there is no straightforward computational method available to determine these values. We here revisit the determination of gENs using partial charges (“recharging”), computed at a high level of theory using the natural charge of a group (proton, methyl, vinyl, phenyl) bound to the substituent of interest and correlating the values with Pauling electronegativities. The results were found to be in good agreement with previous experimental and computational results. The values also qualitatively reproduced expected electronegativity trends. Furthermore, this work provides the first attempt to compare literature values by scaling them to a single metric (Pauling electronegativities). The method employed is simple and convenient, and could prove to be useful to chemists for determining the gEN of a substituent of interest, or by chemical educators as an assignment or laboratory exercise in a computational chemistry course.
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) | 0.009 | 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".