Proton Inventory Study of the Base-Catalyzed Hydrolysis of Formamide. Consideration of the Nucleophilic and General Base Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An NMR study of the rates of hydroxide-promoted hydrolysis of formamide in aqueous media of varying mole fraction D(2)O (n) was performed at [LO(-)] = 1.42 M, T = 25 degrees C, to shed light on whether the mechanism involves a nucleophilic attack of HO(-) on the C=O or HO(-) acting as a general base to remove a proton from an attacking water. The solvent deuterium kinetic isotope effect under these conditions is inverse, k(OH)/k(OD) = 0.77 +/- 0.02 or k(OD)/k(OH) = 1.30 +/- 0.03. Proton inventory analysis of the k(n)() versus n data was undertaken through NLLSQ fits to equations representing four possible mechanisms encompassing nucleophilic and general base ones with waters of solvation on the attacking hydroxide, and with or without waters of solvation on the developing amide hydrate oxyanion. Both nucleophilic and general base mechanisms can be accommodated, but there are restraints on each that are discussed. The preferred mechanism is a nucleophilic one proceeding through a transition state having two solvating waters remaining on the attacking hydroxide and three additional waters attached to the developing amide hydrate oxyanion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".