Mechanism to model: a physical organic chemistry approach to reaction prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of mechanistic generalizations is at the core of chemical reaction development and application. These strategies are rooted in physical organic chemistry where mechanistic understandings can be derived from one reaction and applied to explain another. Over time these techniques have evolved from rationalizing observed outcomes to leading experimental design through reaction prediction. In parallel, significant progression in asymmetric organocatalysis has expanded the reach of chiral transfer to new reactions with increased efficiency. However, the complex and diverse catalyst structures applied in this arena have rendered the generalization of asymmetric catalytic processes to be exceptionally challenging. Recognizing this, a portion of our research has been focused on understanding the transferability of chemical observations between similar reactions and exploiting this phenomenon as a platform for prediction. Through these experiences, we have relied on a working knowledge of reaction mechanism to guide the development and application of our models which have been advanced from simple qualitative rules to large statistical models for quantitative predictions. In this feature article, we describe the models acquired to generalize organocatalytic reaction mechanisms and demonstrate their use as a powerful approach for accelerating enantioselective synthesis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".