Reductive Aromatization/Dearomatization and Elimination Reactions to Access Conjugated Polycyclic Hydrocarbons, Heteroacenes, and Cumulenes
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
Abstract Acenes, heteroacenes, conjugated polycyclic hydrocarbons, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (collectively referred to in this review as conjugated polycyclic molecules, CPMs) have fascinated chemists since they were first isolated and synthesized in the mid 19th century. Most recently, these compounds have shown significant promise as the active components in organic devices (e.g., solar cells, thin‐film transistors, light‐emitting diodes, etc.), and, since 2001, a plethora of publications detail synthetic strategies to produce CPMs. In this review, we discuss reductive aromatization, reductive dearomatization, and elimination/extrusion reactions used to form CPMs. After a brief discussion on early methods to synthesize CPMs, we detail the use of reagents used for the reductive (de)aromatization of precursors containing 1,4‐diols/diethers, including SnCl 2 and iodide (I − ). Extension of these methods to carbomers and cumulenes is briefly discussed. We then describe low‐valent metal species used to reduce endoxides to CPMs, and discuss the methods to directly reduce acenediones and acenones to the respective acene. In the final section, we describe methods used to affect aromatization to the desired CPM via extrusion of small, volatile molecules.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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