Relative Generality and Risk: Quantitative Measures For Broad Catalyst Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of chiral catalysts is typically evaluated against empirical reaction outputs like yield and selectivity with traditional analyses limited to a single model system. Expansion of the reaction space permits catalysts to be as-sessed for generality and this provides another useful metric for measuring the effectiveness of a catalyst. The catalyst generality algorithm will assign quantitative generality values to catalyst structures but such broad assessments are applied with the assumption that the reactions under evaluation are more or less the same by disregarding any inherent challenges associated with a particular reaction class. To address this limitation, we introduce two new met-rics, relative generality and risk. These are designed to correct for variations in reaction difficulty and enable a more nuanced evaluation of catalyst performance relative to the specific demands of each reaction. We show in a number of challenging examples that these metrics allow researchers to distinguish between catalysts genuinely exhibiting superior performance and those appearing favorable due to application toward less demanding reactions. This represents a significant advancement in quantifying catalyst success, with demonstrated applications in retrospective analyses and early insights into emerging catalyst classes.
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 | 0.023 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".