Attempted enantiotopic group selective cyanohydrin formation from α-alkoxy aldehydes by double stereodifferentiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enantiotopic group selectivity can result from the competition between substrate and reagent double stereodifferentiation. We have examined this approach for enantioselective hydrocyanation of racemic α-alkoxy aldehydes (e.g., 2-(phenylmethoxy)heptanal (1)). Reaction of 1 with TMSCN mediated by chiral nonracemic alkoxy Ti(IV) reagents under conditions known to be reasonably enantioface selective in reactions with achiral aldehydes, proceeded with very low enantiotopic group selectivity (<2:1). It was established that TMSCN can react with Ti(IV) reagents to produce "TiCN" adducts that are capable of hydrocyanation but with low substrate-controlled diastereoselectivity in reactions with 1. The poor enantiotopic group selectivity observed can be rationalized to result from this low diastereoselectivity despite the respectable levels of enantioface selectivity associated with these reagents in hydrocyanation of achiral aldehydes. Highly diastereoselective hydrocyanation of α-alkoxy aldehydes can be achieved with TMSCN in the presence of excess MgBr 2 ·OEt 2 . High diastereoselectivity was also observed using achiral and chiral TiCN adducts in place of TMSCN. Although the putative TiCN adducts obtained from nonracemic alkoxy Ti(IV) reagents are implicated in enantioface selective hydrocyanation, these reagents were not enantiotopic group selective under these conditions and showed no evidence of double stereodifferentiation. The use of nonracemic bisoxazoline ligands for Mg(II) was also ineffective.Key words: cyanohydrin, 2-alkoxyalkanal, double stereodifferentiation, enantiotopic group selective reaction, kinetic resolution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".