Solvolysis of para-Substituted Cumyl Chlorides. Brown and Okamoto's Electrophilic Substituent Constants Revisited Using Continuum Solvent Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brown and Okamoto (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1958, 80, 4979) derived their electrophilic substitutent constants, sigma(p)+, from the relative rates of solvolysis of ring-substituted cumyl chlorides in an acetone/water solvent mixture. Application of the Hammett equation to the rates for the meta-substituted cumyl chlorides, where there could be no resonance interaction with the developing carbocation, gave a slope, rho(+) = -4.54 ( identical with 6.2 kcal/mol free energy). Rates for the para-substituted chlorides were then used to obtain sigma(p)+ values. We have calculated gas-phase C-Cl heterolytic bond dissociation enthalpy differences, Delta BDE(het) (= BDE(het)(4-YC(6)H(4)CMe(2)Cl) - BDE(het)(C(6)H(5)CMe(2)Cl)), for 16 of the 4-Y substituents employed by Brown and Okamoto. The plot of Delta BDE(het) vs sigma(p)+ gave rho(+) (SD) = 16.3 (2.3) kcal/mol, i.e., a rho(+) value roughly 2.5 times greater than experiment. Inclusion of solvation (water) energies, calculated using three continuum solvent models, reduced rho(+) and SD. The computationally least expensive model used, SM5.42R (Li et al. Theor. Chem. Acc. 1999, 103, 9) gave the best agreement with experiment. This model yielded rho(+) (SD) = 7.7 (0.9) kcal/mol, i.e., a rho(+) value that is only 24% larger than experiment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".