Reciprocal donor acceptor selectivity (RDAS): A new concept for "matching" donors with acceptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lemieux's extensive work on replacement reactions at the anomeric center helped to establish the fact that the O-2-protecting group of a donor exerts powerful control over stereoselectivity in glycoside coupling reactions. This manuscript shows that the O-2-protecting group of a donor also exerts powerful, indeed sometimes total, control over regioselectivity in glycosidation of diols. The latter acceptors also exhibit preferences over the donor, thereby providing evidence for the concept of reciprocal donor acceptor selectivity (RDAS). The latter concept is put to the test by simultaneously presenting an acceptor diol with equivalent amounts of two donors, in the hope of achieving double differential glycosidation leading to one-pot assembly of a trisaccharide. When the pair of donors did not conform to RDAS principles the reaction did not proceed beyond a dissacharide. However, when the pair was RDAS sanctioned, a single trisaccharide (out of four possibilities) was obtained.Key words: regiocontrolled glycosidation, armed and disarmed donors, di- and trioxolenium ions, oxocarbenium ion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".