MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117106440 · doi:10.1039/c4cc09221j

The utilization of copper flow reactors in organic synthesis

2014· review· en· W2117106440 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Bao, Geoffrey K. Tranmer

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Communications · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopperChemistryFlow (mathematics)Organic synthesisChemical engineeringCombinatorial chemistryOrganic chemistryCatalysisMechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of flow chemistry techniques has flourished over the past decade, with the field expanding to include the use of copper flow reactors in bench-top organic synthesis in recent years. These reactors are available in a variety of forms and possess a number of advantages over their batch reaction counterparts, in terms of both safety and yield. This review will highlight the current research employing copper flow reactors, such as 1,3-dipolar cycloadditions ('click' chemistry), macrocyclizations (via 'click' chemistry), Sonogashira C-C couplings, Ullmann couplings, decarboxylations, and other reported findings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical CommunicationsSame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207