Mixed [2.2]Cyclophanes of Pyrene and Benzene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An examination of the literature on [2.2]cyclophanes reveals a loose relationship between the relative sizes of the two ‘half-cyclophanes’ (as measured by the parameter Δd) and the limitations of the dominant general synthetic approaches. Direct coupling methods tend to be successful only for systems with Δd values below 1.0 Å, whereas ring-contraction-based approaches are usually viable for systems with Δd values up to 2.0 Å. For the very few known systems with Δd values greater than 2.0 Å, aromatization-based approaches are the only ones that have been successful. The syntheses of two [2.2]cyclophanes with very large Δd values, [2]paracyclo[2](2,7)pyrenophane (17) (Δd = 4.25 Å) and [2]metacyclo[2](2,7)pyrenophane (18) (Δd = 5.04 Å) are presented here. The syntheses hinge on a valence isomerization/dehydrogenation reaction. The crystallographically determined bend angle, θ, for 18 is 96.1°. Cyclophane 18 undergoes a degenerate conformational flip, the energy barrier for which was determined to be 18.9 kcal mol–1 by DNMR.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".