MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064105223 · doi:10.1021/jo010601o

Nitroxyl Radical Addition to Pentafulvenones Forming Cyclopentadienyl Radicals:  A Test for Cyclopentadienyl Radical Destabilization

2001· article· en· W2064105223 on OpenAlexafffund
Annette D. Allen, Justin Porter, Daryoush Tahmassebi, Thomas T. Tidwell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Organic Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOxidative Organic Chemistry Reactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCyclopentadienyl complexRadicalChemistryNitroxylPhotochemistryPolymer chemistryOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photochemical Wolff rearrangements in alkane solvents of the 6-diazo-2,4-cyclohexadienones 4 and 13-15 give pentafulvenone (1), 2,3-benzopentafulvenone (2), dibenzopentafulvenone (3), and 2,4-di-tert-butylpentafulvenone (16), as identified by conventional UV and IR spectroscopy. Reactions of these fulvenyl ketenes with tetramethylpiperidinyloxyl (TEMPO) proceed by addition of TEMPO to the carbonyl carbon forming delocalized radicals for 1 and 2 which add one or more further TEMPO molecules, while the initial radical products formed from 3 and 16 dimerize. The rate constants of these reactions compared to hydration rate constants for the same compounds show the benzannulated derivatives 2 and 3 fit a previous correlation k(2)(TEMPO) vs k((H(2)O), whereas for 1 and 16 there is evidence for inhibition of reactions with radicals. The deviations are consistent with an absence of aromatic stabilization of the cyclopentadienyl radicals from 1 and 16 that is compensated in the benzannulated derivatives.

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)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Organic ChemistrySame topicOxidative Organic Chemistry ReactionsFrench-language works237,207