MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023544102 · doi:10.1002/jhet.3986

Reaction of tris(hydroxymethyl)phosphine and cinnamaldehyde in methanol

2020· article· en· W3023544102 on OpenAlexaff
Д. В. Моисеев, Yulia B. Malysheva, А. В. Гущин, Brian R. James

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heterocyclic Chemistry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCarbohydrate Chemistry and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryHydroxymethylPhosphineCinnamaldehydeMoietyTrisPhosphine oxideMedicinal chemistryAldehydeOrganic chemistryCinnamyl alcoholSolventStereochemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reaction of tris(hydroxymethyl)phosphine with excess cinnamaldehyde in CH3OH or CD3OD, followed using NMR, proceeds via several phosphorus‐containing intermediates, multiple transformations of organic parts, and with the solvent H/D isotope effect on products. In both solvents, one CH2OH group of tris(hydroxymethyl)phosphine is readily replaced by the cinnamaldehyde moiety to give the primary product, a 1,3‐oxaphosphorinane derivative. Slower replacement of the second CH2OH group leads to a mixture of aliphatic and heterocyclic phosphine intermediates in a ratio of ~4:1 in CH3OH and ~1:1 in CD3OD; both intermediates contain alcohol and aldehyde groups and convert rapidly into intra‐ and intermolecular hemiacetals. The hemiacetals of the aliphatic phosphine rearrange further into an unsymmetrical trialkylphosphine oxide, whereas the hemiacetals of the heterocyclic phosphine react with the third mole of cinnamaldehyde to replace the third CH2OH group of tris(hydroxymethyl)phosphine. All intermediates and products are formed as mixtures of stereoisomers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Heterocyclic ChemistrySame topicCarbohydrate Chemistry and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207