Mayr electrophilicity predicts the dual Diels–Alder and σ-adduct formation behaviour of heteroaromatic super-electrophiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on the dual reactivity, i.e. anionic Meisenheimer sigma adduct formation and Diels-Alder adduct formation, of a series of heteroaromatic super-electrophiles, including 4,6-dinitro-benzofuroxan, -N-arylbenzotriazoles (4), -benzothiadiazole and -benzoselenadiazole. Measured pK(a)(H(2)O) values for sigma adduct formation provide a quantitative measure of super-electrophilic reactivity with a satisfactory correlation between the Mayr E electrophilicity parameter and pK(a)(H(2)O): E = -0.662 pK(a)(H(2)O) (or pK(R+) -3.20 (r(2) = 0.987). The most highly electrophilic, pre-eminent super-electrophile is 4,6-dinitrotetrazolopyridine (E = -4.67, pK(a)(H(2)O) = 0.4), which supercedes the reference Meisenheimer super-electrophile, 4,6-dinitrobenzofuroxan (E = -5.06, pK(a) = 3.75), having itself an E value superior by 8 orders of magnitude compared to 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene as the benchmark normal Meisenheimer electrophile (E = -13.19, pK(a)(H(2)O) = 13.43). (For relevant kinetic parameters as well as E and pK(a) values, see .) In a parallel study we have investigated Diels-Alder (normal and inverse electron demand) reactivity of this series of heteroaromatic electrophiles and have shown that Mayr E values are valid predictors of whether DA adducts will form and how rapidly. The observed order of pericyclic reactivity corresponds to E = -8.5 as the demarcation E value, in close agreement with sigma complexation; thus pointing to a common origin for the two processes, i.e. an inverse relationship between the degree of aromaticity of the carbocyclic ring and ease of sigma complexation, or DA reactivity, respectively.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".