Kinetic study on aminolysis of aryl X-substituted-cinnamates in acetonitrile: differential medium effect determines reactivity and reaction mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A kinetic study on nucleophilic substitution reactions of 2,4-dinitrophenyl X-substituted-cinnamates (1a–1f) and Y-substituted-phenyl cinnamates (2a–2g) with a series of alicyclic secondary amines in MeCN at 25.0 ± 0.1 °C is reported. The Brønsted-type plots for the reactions of 1a–1f are linear with βnuc = 0.47∼0.50, indicating that the bond formation between the amine nucleophile and the electrophilic center is advanced slightly in the transition state. The Brønsted-type plot for the reactions of 2a–2g with piperidine is also linear with βlg = –0.66, which is a typical βlg value for reactions reported previously to proceed through a concerted mechanism. Furthermore, the Hammett plot correlated with σ– constants results in much better linearity than that correlated with σo constants, implying that expulsion of the leaving group is advanced in the rate-determining step (RDS). Thus, the reactions are concluded to proceed through a concerted mechanism. The Hammett plots for the reactions of 1a–1f consist of two intersecting straight lines, whereas the corresponding Yukawa–Tsuno plots exhibit excellent linear correlations with ρX = 0.62∼0.71 and r = 0.65∼0.68. Apparently, the nonlinear Hammett plots are not due to a change in the reaction mechanism (or the RDS) but are caused by stabilization of the substrate possessing an electron-donating group (EDG) in the cinnamoyl moiety through resonance interactions between the EDG and the C=O bond of the substrate. Medium effects on reactivity and reaction mechanism are also discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".