Investigation of Substituent Effects on the Selectivity of 4π-Electrocyclization of 1,3-Diarylallylic Cations for the Formation of Highly Substituted Indenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differentially substituted 1,3-diaryl-substituted allylic cations generated by ionization of the corresponding allylic alcohols in the presence of a Lewis acid undergo chemoselective and regioselective electrocyclization reactions to generate 1-aryl-1H-indenes. Electrocyclization only occurs for allylic cations bearing a 2-substituent, with 2-ester and 2-alkyl substituents both tolerated. In general, the presence of electron-withdrawing substituents deactivates the ring and disfavors cyclization. In contrast, the selectivity of cyclization of systems containing electron-donating substituents depends on the nature and position of the electron-donating group. Electron-donating substituents at the meta position particularly favor cyclization. There was no obvious correlation of cyclization selectivity with calculated electron densities as has been suggested for electrophilic aromatic substitution reactions. However, the calculated selectivities determined by a gas-phase (B3LYP/6-31G* + ZPVE) comparison of the relative rates of cyclization were in remarkably good agreement with the observed selectivities. Calculated transition-state structures for cyclization are consistent with a cationic pi4(a) conrotatory electrocyclization mechanism. In some cases involving more electron-deficient systems, the initially formed 1H-indene underwent subsequent alkene isomerization to the 3H-indene. In one example, an unusual dimerization reaction occurred to give a cyclopenta[a]indene via an unusual formal cationic 2pi+2pi cycloaddition of the allylic cation with the intermediate indene.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".