MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321605288 · doi:10.1021/om501008m

Reaction of an Enantiomerically Pure Phosphaalkene-Oxazoline with MeM Nucleophiles (M = Li and MgBr): Stereoselectivity and Noninnocence of the P-Mesityl Substituent

2014· article· en· W2321605288 on OpenAlexafffund
Spencer C. Serin, Brian O. Patrick, Gregory R. Dake, Derek P. Gates

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganometallics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and characterization of novel inorganic/organometallic compounds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryStereocenterNucleophileMethyllithiumOxazolineProtonationSubstituentStereoselectivityPhosphineMedicinal chemistryStereochemistryOrganic chemistryEnantioselective synthesisIonCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The addition of alkyl nucleophiles (MeM, M = Li, MgBr) across the P═C bond of an enantiomerically pure phosphaalkene-oxazoline followed by protonation of the C anion affords phosphines with three chirality centers. The formation of palladium(II) complexes of the resultant phosphines permitted structural characterization of the products by X-ray diffraction. The choice of nucleophile has a profound effect on the product distributions. For instance, the Grignard reagent adds in a diastereoselective manner to give one major phosphine product with P- and C-stereocenters. In contrast, addition of methyllithium has proven not only to be less stereoselective but also affords a fascinating cyclic phosphine product. Both the Grignard and RLi reactions involve proton transfer from the o -Me of the P-Mes substituent even though the products are quite different in each case.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganometallicsSame topicSynthesis and characterization of novel inorganic/organometallic compoundsFrench-language works237,207