MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387667414 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v15n2p50

The Mechanism of Friedel-Crafts Chlorination Historically Reconsidered

2023· article· en· W4387667414 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
William B. Jensen, Roger W. Kugel, Allan R. Pinhas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicInorganic and Organometallic Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryLewis acids and basesFriedel–Crafts reactionElectrophileAntibonding molecular orbitalNucleophileComputational chemistryMechanism (biology)Organic chemistryMedicinal chemistryCatalysisElectronAtomic orbitalQuantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This short review proposes a revision to the currently accepted textbook mechanism for the direct Friedel-Crafts chlorination of benzene. After briefly reviewing the history of Friedel-Crafts chemistry and the origins of the current textbook mechanism for the direct chlorination of benzene, it is pointed out how this mechanism is at variance with the predictions of both generalized Lewis acid-base chemistry and simple frontier orbital theory, which require that dichlorine should function as a sigma antibonding electron-pair acceptor (σ*-EPA) or electrophile (Lewis acid) rather than as a pi antibonding electron-pair donor (π*-EPD) or nucleophile (Lewis base). A modification of the currently accepted mechanism consistent with these concepts is then proposed. After reviewing the debates over the structure of the active catalyst, previous proposals for the modification of the current mechanism, and other examples in which the dihalogens function as σ*-EPA electrophiles, the revised mechanism is evaluated using DFT calculations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicInorganic and Organometallic ChemistryFrench-language works237,207