A Systematic Study of the Effects of Relative Configuration, Protecting Group, and Enolate Type on the Diastereoselectivities of Aldol Reactions of a Chiral Ethyl Ketone with 2-Methylpropanal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diastereoselectivities of aldol reactions of 2-methylpropanal with various enolates of 5-O-methoxymethyl and 5-O-triethylsilyl derivatives of the four racemic diastereomers of 6-(2-ethyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl)-5-hydroxy-4-methylheptan-3-one are reported. Reactions of the (E)-enol dicyclohexylborinates, (Z)-enol 9-BBN borinates (i.e., 9-((Z)-enoxy)-9-borabicyclo[3.3.1]nonanes), Li (E)-enolates, Li (Z)-enolates, and Ti(IV) (Z)-enolates were examined. Boron and Li enolates were prepared by standard methods, but Ti(IV) enolates were obtained via transmetalation of the Li (Z)-enolates by reaction with TiCln(Oi-Pr)(4-n) (n = 0-2). Aldol relative topicity (simple diastereoselectivity) was strongly correlated to the enolate geometry: anti aldols from (E)-enolates and syn aldols from (Z)-enolates. However, for each enolate type, the diastereoface selectivities varied widely (by factors of 5-400) with the relative configuration and nature of the C5 protecting group in the 8 starting ketones. Plausible transition state models are postulated to rationalize some of these observations. The relative configurations for the complete set of 16 diastereomeric 2-(2-ethyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl)-7-hydroxy-3-(methoxymethoxy)-4,6,8-trimethylnonan-5-one aldol adducts were confirmed by NMR analysis of 12 acetonide derivatives prepared from the corresponding 5,7-syn diols. Examination of the NMR data for the above set of aldol adducts revealed consistent trends that were exploited to assign the relative configurations of 13 diastereomeric 2-(2-ethyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl)-7-hydroxy-3-(triethylsilyloxy)-4,6,8-trimethylnonan-5-one aldol adducts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".