MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793922352 · doi:10.1002/anie.201712211

Palladium‐Catalyzed Formal Cross‐Coupling of Diaryl Ethers with Amines: Slicing the 4‐<i>O</i>‐5 Linkage in Lignin Models

2018· article· en· W2793922352 on OpenAlexafffund
Huiying Zeng, Dawei Cao, Zihang Qiu, Chao‐Jun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAngewandte Chemie International Edition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre in Green Chemistry and Catalysis
FundersRecruitment Program of Global ExpertsFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsPalladiumCatalysisLinkage (software)LigninSlicingCoupling (piping)ChemistryOrganic chemistryPolymer chemistryMaterials scienceComputer scienceComposite materialBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lignin is the second most abundant organic matter on Earth, and is an underutilized renewable source for valuable aromatic chemicals. For future sustainable production of aromatic compounds, it is highly desirable to convert lignin into value-added platform chemicals instead of using fossil-based resources. Lignins are aromatic polymers linked by three types of ether bonds (α-O-4, β-O-4, and 4-O-5 linkages) and other C-C bonds. Among the ether bonds, the bond dissociation energy of the 4-O-5 linkage is the highest and the most challenging to cleave. To date, 4-O-5 ether linkage model compounds have been cleaved to obtain phenol, cyclohexane, cyclohexanone, and cyclohexanol. The first example of direct formal cross-coupling of diaryl ether 4-O-5 linkage models with amines is reported, in which dual C(Ar)-O bond cleavages form valuable nitrogen-containing derivatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations134
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAngewandte Chemie International EditionSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207