Organocatalyzed Oxa-Diels–Alder Reactions: Recent Progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The oxa-Diels–Alder reaction is a straightforward, atom-economical process for the construction of six-membered oxacycles, which are privileged structures due to their very common occurrence in several pharmaceuticals and natural products. As with many other asymmetric transformations, organocatalysis provides an elegant pathway to their synthesis via [4+2] annulation under mild reaction conditions. The oxa-Diels–Alder reaction utilizes either an α,β-unsaturated carbonyl as an oxa-diene with a suitable dienophile or a simple carbonyl as a dienophile with other dienes. A range of organocatalysts has been explored in the past decade to execute this strategy. The catalysts induce stereoselectivities via two basic reactivities: (1) The formation of chiral intermediates, or (2) selectively activating suitable reactants via a transition state. The present short review compiles organocatalyzed asymmetric oxa-Diels–Alder reactions published over the last ten years, along with detailed discussions on mechanistic approaches. 1 Introduction 2 Catalysis through Covalent Activation 2.1 N-Heterocyclic Carbenes 2.2 Amines 2.3 Isothiourea Catalysis 2.4 Phosphines 3 Catalysis through Non-Covalent Activation 3.1 Bifunctional Amines 3.2 Brønsted Acids 3.3 Guanidines 4 Multicatalysis through Both Covalent and Non-Covalent Activation 5 Conclusion
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".