Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsaturated half acid esters such as 1 are readily prepared by Stobbe condensation between dialkyl succinate and an aldehyde. Johannes G. de Vries of DSM and Floris P. J. T. Rutjes of Radboud University Nijmegen observed (Adv. Synth. Catal. 2008, 350, 85) that these acids were excellent substrates for enantioselective hydrogenation. Kazuaki Kudo of the University of Tokyo designed (Organic Lett. 2008, 10, 2035) a resin bound peptide catalyst for the transfer reduction of unsaturated aldehydes such as 3 , using 4 as the net H2 donor. Note that 5 was produced with high enantiocontrol from 3 that was a ~ 2:1 mixture of geometric isomers. Motomu Kanai and Masakatsu Shibasaki of the University of Tokyo devised (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 6072) a chiral Gd catalyst that mediated the conjugate cyanation of enones such as 6 with high ee. Eric N. Jacobsen of Harvard University prepared (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 1762) a dimeric Al salen catalyst that showed improved activity over the monomeric catalysts. Even congested imides such as 8 could be cyanated efficiently, delivering alkylated quaternary stereogenic centers. Takahiro Nishimura and Tamio Hayashi of Kyoto University optimized (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 1576) the Rh*-catalyzed enantioselective conjugate addition of silyl acetylenes to enones such as 10, to give 12. Adriaan J. Minnaard and Ben L. Feringa of the University of Groningen devised (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 398) conditions for the enantioselective 1,6-conjugate addition of alkyl Grignard reagents to diene esters such as the inexpensive ethyl sorbate 14. The product 16 incorporated, in addition to the newly formed stereogenic center, a geometrically defined E alkene. William S. Bechara and André B. Charette of the Université de Montréal found (Organic Lett. 2008, 10, 2315) that alkyl Grignard reagents could be induced to add with high enantioselectivity to pyridyl sulfones such as 17. In a different approach, Gregory C. Fu of MIT developed (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 3302; J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 2756) conditions for the enantioselective alkenylation of racemic bromo esters such as 19, The latter reference is to the analogous enantioselective coupling of organozinc bromides with racemic allylic chlorides.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".