The neutral hydrolysis of methyl acetate — Part 2. Is there a tetrahedral intermediate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A computational strategy that reproduces the experimental rates of hydration of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and cyclohexanone and the rates of acetic acid and 2-hydroxypyridine-catalyzed hydration of acetone has been extended to the results of the neutral hydrolysis of methyl acetate reported in Part 1. Calculations have been performed for one-step and two-step mechanisms, with cooperative assistance from one to three additional water molecules in the presence and absence of the acetic acid product. The calculations predict that, for the neutral reaction, a one-step mechanism will be favoured if tetrahedral intermediates have a short lifetime and do not interconvert prior to breakdown (case A), and a two-step mechanism will be operative if tetrahedral intermediates are allowed to interconvert prior to breakdown (case B). The experimental results are consistent with the predictions of case A. In the presence of acetic acid, case A predicts that the acid will contribute only 1.6% to the overall rate, a negligible acceleration over the noncatalytic process, and case B predicts general acid catalysis to be an order of magnitude greater than the experimental result. It is concluded that the neutral hydrolysis of methyl acetate is mainly a cooperative one-step process, and that general acid catalysis by the acetic acid product does not occur.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".