MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109476385 · doi:10.1002/ejoc.201500973

Contrasting Reactivity of CS<sub>2</sub> with Cyclic vs. Acyclic Amidines

2015· article· en· W2109476385 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Trisha C. Ang, Lam Phan, Aliyah K. Alshamrani, Jitendra R. Harjani, Ruiyao Wang, G. Schatte, Nicholas J. Mosey, Philip G. Jessop

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Organic Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCarbon dioxide utilization in catalysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsAlbaha University
KeywordsChemistryAmidineReactivity (psychology)AlkylationCarbamic acidBond cleavageMedicinal chemistryStereochemistryOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The interaction between carbon dioxide (CO2) and amidines such as 1,8‐diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undecane (DBU) has been extensively studied, but the reaction of isovalent CS2 with such bases has been largely ignored, apart from a single crystallography report. Acyclic acetamidines are cleaved by CS2 at room temperature to give an isothiocyanate and a thioacetamide. Because the pathway to that cleavage involves a rotation that is difficult for cyclic amidines, the reaction of CS2 with cyclic amidines produces an entirely different product: a cyclic carbamic carboxylic trithioanhydride structure. The path to that product involves sp3 C‐H activation leading to the formation of a new C–C bond at a carbon α to the central carbon of the amidine group. Alkylation and ring‐opening of the cyclic carbamic carboxylic trithioanhydride has also been demonstrated under ambient conditions.

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 score0.007

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Organic ChemistrySame topicCarbon dioxide utilization in catalysisFrench-language works237,207