MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035941656 · doi:10.1021/ci9004332

Construction of Functional Group Reactivity Database under Various Reaction Conditions Automatically Extracted from Reaction Database in a Synthesis Design System

2010· article· en· W2035941656 on OpenAlexaff
Akio Tanaka, Hideho Okamoto, Malcolm Bersohn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Information and Modeling · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabaseReactivity (psychology)Functional groupChemistryComputer scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To be able to estimate the reactivity of functional groups under certain reaction conditions, we have stored three types of data: (1) data of change or destruction of the functional groups by the conditions of the reaction conditions; (2) data showing no influence of the reaction conditions on the functional groups; and (3) data showing the relative reactivity of two functional groups in the presence of certain reaction conditions. These three types of data, considered together, form entities that are referenced as "interaction data". These interaction data are used in a synthesis design system called SYNSUP. A new module in our system has been constructed that automatically generates interaction data from the reaction databases. From 15 265 reactions in the database, our program selected 2763 useful reactions with yields of > or =90% and one functional group change. From these useful reactions, data regarding 465 interferences, 815 cases of inert functional groups (under the reaction conditions), and 62 relative rate data could be extracted. In addition, with the use of multiple relative rate datasets, the reactivity of more than two functional groups could be deduced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Information and ModelingSame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207