Catalyzing Change: The Power of Computational Asymmetric Catalysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational asymmetric catalysis has seen an impressive rise in the last twenty years, thanks to advancements in algorithm and method development for predicting catalyst enantioselectivity. These methods/algorithms describe reactions that can be categorized into two groups: reactions where 1) knowledge of the mechanism is not required and where leveraging experimental data to establish correlations between reaction descriptors and enantioselectivity is imperative, and 2) the mechanism (or transition state (TS) for the enantioselective step) is known and used to determine catalyst stereoselectivity by modeling the diastereomeric TSs. Although these methods have reached an important level of proficiency for enantioselectivity prediction, this field remains largely obscured for experimental chemists. In this review, we aim to shed light on models, methods, and applications used in asymmetric synthesis, with accessible language suited for experimental chemists. Our hope is that these methods will ultimately be adopted by synthetic chemists for the design of novel catalysts.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it