Reactions of the Ionised Enol Tautomer of Acetanilide: Elimination of HNCO via a Novel Rearrangement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reactions of ionised acetanilide, C(6)H(5)NH(=O)CH(3)(.+), and its enol, C(6)H(5)NH(OH)=CH(2)(.+), have been studied by a combination of tandem mass spectrometric and computational methods. These two isomeric radical cations have distinct chemistries at low internal energies. The keto tautomer eliminates exclusively CH(2)=C=O to give ionised aniline. In contrast, the enol tautomer loses H-N=C=O, via an unusual skeletal rearrangement, to form predominantly ionised methylene cyclohexadiene. Hydrogen atom loss also occurs from the enol tautomer, with the formation of protonated oxindole. The mechanisms for H-N=C=O and hydrogen atom loss both involve cyclisation; the former proceeds via a spiro transition state formed by attachment of the methylene group to the ipso position, whereas the latter entails the formation of a five-membered ring by attachment to the ortho position. The behaviour of labelled analogues reveals that these two processes have different site selectivities. Hydrogen atom loss involves a reverse critical energy and is subject to an isotope effect. Surprisingly, attempts to promote the enolisation of ionised acetanilide by proton-transport catalysis were unsuccessful. In a reversal of the usual situation for ionised carbonyl compounds, ionised acetanilide is actually more stable than its enol tautomer. The enol tautomer was resistant to proton-transport catalysed ketonisation to ionised acetanilide, possibly because the favoured geometry of the encounter complex with the base molecule is inappropriate for facilitating tautomerisation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".