MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059523788 · doi:10.1021/jo060553d

The Synthesis and Resolution of 2,2‘-, 4,4‘-, and 6,6‘-Substituted Chiral Biphenyl Derivatives for Application in the Preparation of Chiral Materials

2006· article· en· W2059523788 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro J. Montoya‐Pelaez, Yoon-Seo Uh, Christopher J. Lata, Matthew P. Thompson, Robert P. Lemieux, Cathleen M. Crudden

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Organic Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAxial and Atropisomeric Chirality Synthesis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryEnantiomerBiphenylUllmann reactionYield (engineering)SubstituentCombinatorial chemistryMonomerOrganic chemistryCoupling reactionCatalysisPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various routes were examined for the synthesis of chiral biphenyl species that are substituted at the 2,2', 4,4' and 6,6' positions. Because the biaryl bond is tetrasubstituted, many coupling reactions were not suitable. The most reliable coupling reaction proved to be the Ullmann, which gave the desired product in 82% yield. The products were required as the starting point for the preparation of chiral materials using these as the monomer. For this reason, a route was required that produced large quantities of both enantiomers. The two enantiomers were resolved at the penultimate step by the use of chiral HPLC. A complicating feature proved to be the necessity to have a reactive group at the 4,4' positions, which would permit polymerization though this point. Ultimately, we employed an Ullmann coupling on a dibrominated arene, which occurred selectively at the more hindered bromine by virtue of the directing effect of an ortho ester substituent.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Organic ChemistrySame topicAxial and Atropisomeric Chirality SynthesisFrench-language works237,207