MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060712167 · doi:10.1139/v05-114

Kinetics and mechanism of the oxidation of alcohols by tetrapropylammonium perruthenate

2005· article· en· W2060712167 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
W. David Chandler, Zhao Wang, Donald G. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Synthesis and Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryKinetic isotope effectAutocatalysisPhotochemistryTetrahydrofuranDeuteriumAlcohol oxidationKineticsCatalysisReaction mechanismPropanolReaction rateMedicinal chemistryOrganic chemistryMethanol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2-Propanol is oxidized by tetrapropylammonium perruthenate (TPAP) in a reaction that is second order in TPAP and first order in 2-propanol. One of the products, believed to be ruthenium dioxide, is an effective catalyst for the reaction, making it an autocatalytic process. The rate of oxidation is relatively insensitive to the presence of substituents. Primary kinetic deuterium isotope effects are observed when either the hydroxyl or the α hydrogen is replaced by deuterium. The only product obtained from the oxidation of cyclobutanol is cyclobutanone, indicating that the reaction is a two-electron process. Tetrahydrofuran is oxidized at a rate that is several orders of magnitude slower than that observed for 2-propanol, suggesting that the reaction of TPAP with alcohols may be initiated by formation of perruthenate esters. A tentative mechanism consistent with these observations is proposed.Key words: oxidation, alcohols, tetrapropylammonium perruthenate, reaction mechanism, autocatalysis.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicChemical Synthesis and ReactionsFrench-language works237,207