Unexpected 5,6,7,8,9,10-Hexahydro-6,6-pentamethylenephenanthridines and 2,3,4,5-Tetrahydro-4,4-tetramethylene-1<i>H</i>-cyclopenta[<i>c</i>]quinolines from Skraup–Doebner–Von Miller Quinoline Synthesis and Their Implications for the Mechanism of That Reaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The real mechanism of the Skraup-Doebner-Von Miller quinoline synthesis remains controversial and not well understood despite several mechanistic studies reported on the matter. A series of unexpected and unusual 5,6,7,8,9,10-hexahydro-6,6-pentamethylenephenanthridines and 2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-4,4-tetramethylene-1H-cyclopenta[c]quinolines have been obtained through the Skraup-Doebner-Von Miller quinoline synthesis. On the basis of these unexpected results and in agreement with some of the previously reported quinoline syntheses, an alternative mechanistic pathway is proposed for this variant of the reaction. It involves the formation of a Schiff base through a reaction between the ketone and the aniline derivative in the first step, followed by a cycloalkenylation at the ortho-position to the amine functional group of the aniline derivative, and an annulation in the final step to close the quinoline ring, leading to a dihydroquinoline derivative. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of such a mechanistic pathway being proposed for any variant of the Skraup-Doebner-Von Miller quinoline synthesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".