Catalytic Enantioselective Three‐Component Hetero‐[4+2] Cycloaddition/Allylboration Approach to α‐Hydroxyalkyl Pyrans: Scope, Limitations, and Mechanistic Proposal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the design and optimization of a catalytic enantioselective three-component hetero-[4+2] cycloaddition/allylboration reaction between 3-boronoacrolein, enol ethers, and aldehydes to afford alpha-hydroxyalkyl dihydropyrans. The key substrate, 3-boronoacrolein pinacolate (2) was found to be an exceptionally reactive heterodiene in the hetero-[4+2] cycloaddition catalyzed by Jacobsen's chiral Cr(III) catalyst 1. The scope and limitations of this process were thoroughly examined. The adduct of 3-boronoacrolein pinacolate and ethyl vinyl ether was obtained in high yield and with over 95 % enantioselectivity. This cyclic alpha-chiral allylboronate adds to a very wide variety of aldehyde substrates, including unsaturated aldehydes and alpha-chiral aldehydes to give diastereomerically pure products. Acyclic 2-substituted enol ethers can be employed, in which case the catalyst promotes a kinetically selective reaction that favors Z enol ethers over the E isomers. Surprisingly, 3-boronoacrolein pinacolate was found to be a superior heterodiene than ethyl (E)-4-oxobutenoate, and a mechanistic interpretation based on a possible [5+2] transition state is proposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".