Bibliographic record
Abstract
Luigino Troisi of the University of Salento found (Tetrahedron Lett. 2010, 51, 371) that a variety of primary and secondary amines could be coupled with a benzylic halide 1 under carbonylating conditions. Ilhyong Ryu of Osaka Prefecture University showed (Organic Lett. 2010, 12, 1548) that under reducing conditions, an iodide 3 coupled with CO to give the primary alcohol. Felicia A. Etzkorn of Virginia Tech observed (Organic Lett. 2010, 12, 696) that under Hg hydrolysis conditions, the orthothioester derived from 5 coupled with 6 to give 7. Yasuharu Yoshimi of the University of Fukui and Minoru Hatanaka of Iwate Medical University devised (Tetrahedron Lett. 2010, 51, 2332) conditions for the decarboxylative addition of the acid 8 to 9 to give 10. Yong-Min Liang and Xiaojun Yao of Lanzhou University and Chao-Jun Li of McGill University described (J. Org. Chem. 2010, 75, 783) a related procedure with α-amino acids. Yasutaka Ishii of Kansai University established (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 2536) that t -butyl acetate 12 was an effective partner for the Ir-mediated oxidation-coupling-reduction of an alcohol 11. He used (J. Org. Chem. 2010, 75, 1803) a similar protocol to condense acetone with the diol 14, to give the long-chain diketone 16. The formation of allylic Grignard reagents can be inefficient because the excess reactive halide tends to couple with the Grignard reagent as it forms. Brandon L. Ashfeld of the University of Notre Dame found (Tetrahedron Lett. 2010, 51, 2427) a simple solution to this problem: inclusion of a catalytic amount of the inexpensive Cp2 TiCl2 to mediate the addition of 18 to 17. Brian T. Connell of Texas A&M University demonstrated (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 7826) that with Mn, 21 could be added to 20. The acetate 21 is thus an easily prepared homoenolate equivalent. Note that although 21 is an E/Z mixture, the product 22 is cleanly Z. Gérard Cahiez of the Université de Paris 13 reported (Synlett 2010, 299) a detailed study of the Cu-catalyzed coupling of 24 with 23. Without supporting ligands, slow addition (syringe pump, 1 h) of 24 to 23 assured clean formation of 25. Manual slow addition (dropping funnel, 15 min) was not effective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
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".