Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Allylic boron compounds have gained a prominent status in organic synthesis for their ability to add with high stereoselectivity to carbonyl compounds such as aldehydes, making them a methodology of choice for the preparation of acetate and propionate units found in several classes of natural products. This remarkable reaction process was discovered in 1964, only to become popular in the 1980s. Using either the dialkylborane or boronate reagents, both the thermal uncatalyzed reaction and the more recent acid‐catalyzed procedures can provide homoallylic alcohol products in high enantioselectivity. The wide of range of possibilities for substitution on the reagent's allylic unit has led to the development of numerous reagents, and the residual alkene unit in the products confers to allylboration chemistry a unique versatility. This chapter presents an exhaustive survey of the useful reagents and their associated carbonyl substrates employed in organic synthesis. The mechanisms and parameters of the reaction are discussed, along with an overview of the different preparative methods for allylic boron reagents. The scope and limitations of these reagents in enantioselective additions, doubly diastereoselective additions, tandem reactions, and other variants is emphasized in the context of applications in natural product synthesis. The literature is covered through early 2006.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
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".