Bibliographic record
Abstract
[108-48-5] C7H9N (MW 107.17) InChI = 1S/C7H9N/c1-6-4-3-5-7(2)8-6/h3-5H,1-2H3 InChIKey = OISVCGZHLKNMSJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N (basic reagent/catalyst for silylation of alcohols,2-10 for Rosenmund reduction,14 and for preparation of boron enolates15) Physical Data: colorless oily liquid with an odor of pyridine and peppermint; bp 144.0 °C/760 mmHg, 79 °C/87 mmHg; mp −5.9 °C; d (20 °C) 0.9252 g cm−3; nD20 1.49797. The major synthetic applications reported for 2,6-lutidine exploit its weakly nucleophilic nature (a result of steric crowding at the ring nitrogen) but moderately basic character (pKa of its conjugate acid is 6.7). Solubility: sol common organic solvents (e.g. ether, THF, DMF, alcohol); shows considerable water solubility (ca. 27% (w/w) at 45 °C). Form Supplied in: a widely available article of commerce. Redistilled (99+ % purity) is available commercially. Drying: commonly dried by treatment with KOH or sodium followed by distillation, or by refluxing with, followed by distillation from, BaO1 or CaH2.2 Purification: both 3- and 4-picolines are common contaminants which can be removed by distillation from AlCl3 (14 g/100 mL 2,6-lutidine, which also removes traces of water), or by addition of BF3 (4 mL/100 mL of 2,6-lutidine) to anhydrous, fractionally distilled 2,6-lutidine, followed by redistillation.1 Handling, Storage, and Precautions: toxic flammable liquid; should be handled with caution in a fume hood.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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 teacher head, 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".