MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012329671 · doi:10.1021/ja906955b

Broadening the Scope of Group 4 Hydroamination Catalysis Using a Tethered Ureate Ligand

2009· article· en· W2012329671 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Leitch, Philippa R. Payne, Christine R. Dunbar, Laurel L. Schafer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAsymmetric Hydrogenation and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydroaminationChemistryRegioselectivityAlkyneAmideIntramolecular forceReactivity (psychology)Markovnikov's ruleCatalysisLigand (biochemistry)AlkylationHeteroatomOrganic chemistryLeaving groupIntermolecular forceCombinatorial chemistryMedicinal chemistryMoleculeRing (chemistry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A broadly applicable group-4-based precatalyst for the hydroamination of primary and secondary amines was developed. Screening experiments involving a series of amide and urea proligands led to the discovery of a tethered bis(ureate) zirconium complex with unprecedented reactivity in the intermolecular hydroamination of alkynes and the intramolecular hydroamination of alkenes. This catalyst system is effective with primary and secondary amines, 1,2-disubstituted alkenes, and heteroatom-containing functional groups, including ethers, silanes, amines, and heteroaromatics. The gem-disubstituent effect is not required for cyclization. The catalyst is generally regioselective for the anti-Markovnikov product of intermolecular alkyne hydroamination, and chemoselective for hydroamination over alpha-alkylation when forming 6- and 7-membered rings from aminoalkenes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations171
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicAsymmetric Hydrogenation and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207