Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ryan Gilmour of the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster employed (Chem. Eur. J. 2014, 20, 794) an organocatalyst to direct the enantioselective aziridination of 1 to 2. Vanessa Kar-Yan Lo and Chi-Ming Che of Hong Kong University devised (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 2982) a Ru catalyst for the enantioselective aziridination (not illustrated) of terminal alkenes. Shu-Li You of the Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry and Aiwen Lei of Wuhan University described (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 2443) the Pd-mediated carbonylation of 3 to the β-lactam 4. Professor You reported (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 6590) the enantioselective allylation of a pyrrole 5 with 6 to give the imine 7. Maria-Paz Cabal and Carlos Valdés of the University of Oviedo showed (Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2014, 1672) that the cyclization of 8 to 9 proceeded with predictable high diastereocontrol. In one pot, Darren J. Dixon of the University of Oxford combined (ACS Catal. 2014, 4, 634) 10 and 11 to give 12 in high ee. The addition of 13 to 14 to give 15 described (Nature Chem. 2014, 6, 47) by Takashi Ooi of Nagoya University set two adjacent quaternary centers with control of both relative and absolute configuration. Scott E. Denmark of the University of Illinois devised (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 8915) a catalyst for the enantioselective electrophilic cyclization of 16 to 17 with control of sidechain stereochemistry. Using commercial acetone cyanohydrin 19, Christian V. Stevens of Ghent University cyclized (Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2014, 1296) 18 to the nitrile 20. George W. J. Fleet, also of the University of Oxford, used (Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2014, 2053) similar conditions to convert the sugar-derived acetonide 21 into 22. Michael B. Tropak of the University of Toronto and Dilip P. Dhavale of the University of Pune showed (J. Org. Chem. 2014, 79, 4398) that the nitrone derived from 21 added to an alkene 23 with high facial selectivity, leading to the piperidine 24. In the course of a synthesis of syringolin A, Satoshi Ichikawa of Hokkaido University effected (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 4836) intramolecular Ugi three-component coupling of the isonitrile 25, the acid 26, and the amine 27, leading to the macrolactam 28.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".