MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165218359 · doi:10.1039/c3cc48036d

Applications of pentafluorophenyl boron reagents in the synthesis of heterocyclic and aromatic compounds

2013· article· en· W2165218359 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca L. Melen

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganoboron and organosilicon chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCooperative Research Centres, Australian Government Department of Industry
KeywordsChemistryReagentCarbocationBoronNucleophileReactivity (psychology)ElectrophileCycloadditionOrganic chemistryCombinatorial chemistryOrganic synthesisAromaticityElectrophilic aromatic substitutionMoleculeCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, main group reagents have attracted a lot of attention in bond-forming reactions in organic synthesis. This article highlights the use of pentafluorophenyl substituted boron reagents in their reactions with C=C and C≡C π-bonds for the synthesis of heterocyclic and aromatic compounds. These cyclisation reactions fall into four general classes although there is some overlap between classes and often combinations of these different types of reactivity are observed in the formation of the final heterocyclic product: (i) 1,2- (and 1,4-) additions of nucleophile and Lewis-acidic boron centre, (ii) 1,1-carboboration, (iii) carbocation rearrangements and (iv) cycloaddition chemistry. In addition, the prospect of using such boron reagents catalytically in the synthesis of aromatic compounds such as oxazoles and dibenzopentalene derivatives is emphasised.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations106
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical CommunicationsSame topicOrganoboron and organosilicon chemistryFrench-language works237,207