Scope and advances in the catalytic propargylic substitution reaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nucleophilic displacement of the propargylic alcohol is one of the sought-after methods in the current scenario. The highly nucleophilic alkyne functional moiety along with its considerably acidic terminal hydrogen atom allows the propargylic unit to play a crucial role in organic synthesis by offering a handle for further synthetic transformations. Until 2000, the most fundamental propargylic substitution reaction was the Nicolas reaction, a multi-step transformation, developed in 1972, which involved cobalt as a stoichiometric promoter. Therefore, the direct catalytic substitution of propargylic alcohols was a highly desirable method for development. The pioneering work on the Ru-catalyzed propargylic substitution reaction in 2000 encouraged many researchers to develop several novel catalytic propargylic substitution reactions, which have made rapid progress since then. The purpose of this review is to emphasise the involvement of diverse types of Lewis acid, transition metal and Brønsted acid catalysts in the propargylic substitution reaction and provide an updated summary of the recent developments in this field. The selected examples presented here are the most significant and relevant ones and we believe that this will help the readers to comprehend the scope of the propargylic substitution reaction with diverse types of catalysts and will envisage the scientific community for the future developments in this field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".