MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161689141 · doi:10.1139/v03-187

Comparison of the Suzuki cross-coupling reactions of 4,7-dichloroquinoline and 7-chloro-4-iodoquinoline with arylboronic acids using phosphine-free palladium catalysis in water

2004· article· en· W2161689141 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard W. Friesen, Laird A. Trimble

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCatalytic Cross-Coupling Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegioselectivityChemistryPalladiumPhenylboronic acidArylPhosphineSuzuki reactionYield (engineering)Coupling reactionOrganic chemistryCatalysisBromideMedicinal chemistryAlkyl

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4,7-Dichloroquinoline (1a) and 7-chloro-4-iodoquinoline (1b) undergo Suzuki cross-coupling reactions with arylboronic acids catalyzed by phosphine-free palladium acetate in boiling water. Using phenylboronic acid (2), the reaction of 1a provides 7-chloro-4-phenylquinoline (3) (78%) together with diphenylquinoline (4) (12%), while 1b reacts in a much more regioselective fashion and provides 3 in 98% isolated yield. Although 1b undergoes a more regioselective Suzuki reaction than 1a, additional important observations are that the overall reaction of 1b with 2 is three times slower than 1a and that the reaction occurs in the absence of tetrabutylammonium bromide. Using optimized reaction conditions, a variety of aryl and vinylboronic acids undergo regioselective Suzuki cross-coupling with 1b to provide the products 7, 10, and 11 in good to excellent yield.Key words: palladium, cross-coupling, regioselectivity, quinolines, boronic acids.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicCatalytic Cross-Coupling ReactionsFrench-language works237,207