Pitfalls in Assessing the α-Effect: Reactions of Substituted Phenyl Methanesulfonates with HOO<sup>−</sup>, OH<sup>−</sup>, and Substituted Phenoxides in H<sub>2</sub>O
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toward resolving the current controversy regarding the validity of the α-effect, we have examined the reactions of Y-substituted phenyl methanesulfonates 1a-1l with HOO(-), OH(-), and Z-substituted phenoxides in the gas phase versus solution (H(2)O). Criteria examined in this work are the following: (1) Brønsted-type and Hammett plots for reactions with HOO(-)and OH(-), (2) comparison of β(lg) values reported previously for the reactions of Y-substituted phenyl benzenesulfonates 2a-2k with HOO(-) (β(lg) = -0.73) and OH(-) (β(lg) = -0.55), and for those of 1a-1l with HOO(-) (β(lg) = -0.69) and OH(-) (β(lg) = -1.35), and (3) Brønsted-type plot showing extreme deviation of OH(-) for reactions of 2,4-dintrophenyl methanesulfonate 1a with aryloxides, HOO(-), and OH(-), signifying extreme solvation vs different mechanisms. The results reveal significant pitfalls in assessing the validity of current interpretations of the α-effect. The extreme negative deviation by OH(-) must be due, in part, to the difference in their reaction mechanisms. Thus, the apparent dependence of the α-effect on leaving-group basicity found in this study has no significant meaning due to the difference in operating mechanisms. The current results argue in favor of a further criterion, i.e., a consistency in mechanism for the α-nucleophiles and normal nucleophiles.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it