MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083441707 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v5n3p33

Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions of 2,4-Dinitrobenzene Derivatives with Hydrazine: Leaving Group and Solvent Effects

2013· article· en· W2083441707 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmoud F. Ibrahim, Hanaa A. Abdel-Reheem, Sherine N. Khattab, Ezzat A. Hamed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Reaction Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryLeaving groupMedicinal chemistrySubstituentSteric effectsNucleophileHydrazine (antidepressant)Reactivity (psychology)MethanolBond cleavageSubstitution reactionNucleophilic substitutionNucleophilic aromatic substitutionIntramolecular forcePhotochemistryOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hydrazinolysis of 2,4-dinitrophenyl acetate in methanol proceed exclusively through acyl-oxygen scission by a concerted mechanism. The reaction of 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene with hydrazine in methanol, acetonitrile and dimethyl sulfoxide undergo uncatalyzed substitution and the formation of the zwitterionic intermediate is the rate-determining step. While 2,4-dinitrobenzene derivatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a-i, 6 with hydrazine in DMSO undergo uncatalyzed substitution and the departure of the leaving group is the rate-determining step. The process depends on the basicity of the leaving group and its steric hindrance as well as the possible intramolecular hydrogen bond in the transition state. The reactivity of compounds 5a-i depends on the substituent of the thioaryl ring while the small ?Y value is due to the sulfides existing preferentially in the skew conformation. The small ?lg value (-0.18, r = 0.99) indicated that the reaction of sulfides with hydrazine proceeds with advanced bond formation to the nucleophile and the bond cleavage proceed in a slow extent in the transition state.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicChemical Reaction MechanismsFrench-language works237,207