Medium-sized cyclophanes. Part 62:<sup>1</sup> Formylation of <i>anti</i>-[<i>n</i>.2]metacyclophanes Through-space electronic interactions between two benzene rings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formylation of anti-[n.2]metacyclophanes (1) (n = 2, 3, 4) with dichloromethyl methyl ether in the presence of TiCl4 occurred selectively at para-position to the internal methyl substituents of anti-[n.2]metacyclophanes. Similar reaction of anti-5,13-di-tert-butyl-8,16-dimethyl[2.2]metacyclophane (6a) with dichloromethyl methyl ether in the presence of TiCl4 led to ipso-formylation at the tert-butyl group to give anti-5-tert-butyl-13-formyl-8,16-dimethyl[2.2]-meta cyclophane (7a) as well as the corresponding 2,7-di-tert-butyl-trans-10b,10c-dimethyl-10b,10c-dihydropyrene (10), anti-5-tert-butyl-8,16-dimethyl-13-(3-methyl-1-butene-2-yl)[2.2]metacyclophane (8), and anti-5,13-di-tert-butyl-exo-1-hydroxy-8,16-dimethyl[2.2]metacyclophane (9) depending on the reaction conditions. The higher yield of ipso-formylated product is obtained in the presence of AlCl3 MeNO2 in 80% yield along with anti-5-tert-butyl-8,16-dimethyl-13-(3-methyl-1-butene-2-yl)[2.2]metacyclophane (13). Thus, the yield of ipso-formylation at the tert-butyl group of 6a was strongly affected by the activity of the formylation catalyst. Interestingly, in the formylation of anti-6,14-di-tert-butyl-9,17-dimethyl[3.2]metacyclophane (6b) under the same reaction conditions, syn-6,14-di-tert-butyl-7-formyl-9,17-dimethyl[3.2]metacyclophane (14b) was obtained in 40% yield arising from the anti-syn-ring inversion of the formylation intermediate along with ipso-formylation product 7b in 42% yield. In the formylation of anti-[4.2] meta cyclophane (6c) only the mono-ipso-formylated product 7c was obtained in 92% yield. The formation of a two-fold ipso-formation product, i.e., anti-5,13-diformyl-8,16-dimethyl[2.2]metacyclophane (3a), was not observed under the reaction conditions used. The mechanism of the ipso-formation as well as the formation of the present novel reaction products 8 and 9 is also discussed. Key words: cyclophanes, strained molecules, electrophilic aromatic substitution, ipso-formylation, σ-complex intermediates, through-space electronic interactions.
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) | 0.003 | 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".