Enantioselective Synthesis of Alcohols and Amines: The Fujii/Ohno Synthesis of (+)-Lysergic Acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ramón Gómez Arrayás and Juan C. Carretero of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid effected (Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 6701) enantioselective conjugate borylation of an unsaturated sulfone 1, leading to the alcohol 2. Robert E. Gawley of the University of Arkansas found (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 19680) conditions for enantioselective ketone reduction that were selective enough to distinguish between the ethyl and propyl groups of 3 to give 4. Vicente Gotor of the Universidad de Oviedo used (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 8387) an overexpressed Baeyer-Villiger monoxygenase to prepare 6 by dynamic kinetic resolution of 5. Li Deng of Brandeis University prepared (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 12458) 8 in high ee by kinetic enantioselective migration of the alkene of racemic 7. Bernhard Breit of the Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies established (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 20746) the oxygenated quaternary center of 10 by the addition of benzoic acid to the allene 9. Keith R. Fandrick of Boehringer Ingelheim constructed (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 10332) the oxygenated quaternary center of 13 by enantioselective addition of the propargylic nucleophile 12 to 11. Yian Shi of Colorado State University devised (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 12914) conditions for the enantioselective transamination of the α-keto ester 14 to the amine 15. Professor Deng added (Adv. Synth. Catal. 2011, 353, 3123) 18 to an enone 17 to give the protected amine 19. Song Ye of the Institute of Chemistry, Beijing effected (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 15894) elimination/addition of an unsaturated acid chloride 20 to give the γ-amino acid derivative 22. Frank Glorius of the Universität Münster added (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 1410) an aldehyde 23 to 24 to give the amide 25. Sentaro Okamoto of Kanagawa University designed (J. Org. Chem. 2011, 76, 6678) an organocatalyst for the enantioselective Steglich rearrangement of 26, creating the aminated quaternary center of 27. Most impressive of all was the report (Org. Lett. 2011, 13, 5460) by Hélène Lebel of the Université de Montréal of the direct enantioselective C–H amination of 28 to give 29.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".