Predicting the reactivity of ambidentate nucleophiles and electrophiles using a single, general-purpose, reactivity indicator
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recently proposed a new reactivity indicator, termed the "general-purpose reactivity indicator", Xi, which describes not only the classical reactivity paradigms, but also describes reactions that are neither frontier-orbital nor electrostatically controlled. This indicator was proposed to be especially useful for reactants with multiple reactive sites, especially if the nature of the reactivity at those sites was different. This suggests that this reactivity indicator is especially appropriate for ambidentate molecules; this paper confirms this hypothesis. The general-purpose reactivity indicator not only identifies the most reactive sites, it also identifies which substrates prefer which reactive sites. In particular, the reactivity indicator allows one to clearly distinguish which sites of an ambidentate molecule are most reactive when electron transfer from the attacking reagent is large (a soft reagent) and which sites are most reactive when the attacking reagent is hard and highly charged (so that electron transfer is relatively insignificant). To illustrate the efficacy of the indicator for nucleophiles we consider SCN(-), SeCN(-), NO(2)(-), SO(3)(2-). For electrophiles we consider dimethyl carbonate, N-methyl-N-nitrosotoluene-p-sulfonamide (MNTS), and 1-chloro-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene (CNB).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it