Dearomatization–Rearomatization Strategy for Palladium-Catalyzed C–N Cross-Coupling Reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Substituted aromatic compounds play important roles in materials, biological agents, dyes, etc. Thus, the synthesis of substituted aromatic compounds has been a hot topic throughout the history of organic chemistry. Traditionally, the Friedel–Crafts reaction was a powerful tool for synthesizing substituted aromatic compounds. In recent decades, metal-catalyzed cross-coupling reactions were well developed via carbon–heteroatom bond cleavage, however, having difficulties towards some strong bonds, such as C(Ar)–OH. To overcome such challenges, newer strategies are needed. In this review, we summarize the recent efforts in the development of dearomatization–rearomatization strategy for cross-coupling reactions via C(Ar)–O bond cleavage. 1 Introduction 2 Dearomatization–Rearomatization Strategy for Cross-Coupling of Phenols 3 Dearomatization–Rearomatization Strategy for Cross-Coupling of Biphenols 4 Dearomatization–Rearomatization Strategy for Cross-Coupling of Diphenyl Ethers 5 Dearomatization–Rearomatization Strategy for Cross-Coupling of Indoles 6 Summary
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".