Carbamoyl Fluorides: A Platform to Interrogate Fluoride-Enabled Reactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The strong and polar nature of C–F bonds impart organofluorine compounds with highly desirable properties, making them indispensable in pharmaceutical, agrochemical, and polymer research. While this bond strength makes the modification of organofluorine compounds challenging, it also creates opportunities for the development of innovative strategies for their functionalization. Carbamoyl fluorides represent an emerging class of fluorinated electrophiles, showcasing unique fluoride-enabled reactivity and serving as versatile building blocks for accessing valuable amides and heterocyclic compounds. This review highlights recent progress in the synthesis and reactivity of carbamoyl fluorides, including comparisons to their chlorinated counterparts where relevant. 1 Introduction 2 Synthesis and Simple Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions of Carbamoyl Fluorides 2.1 Direct Use of Difluorophosgene 2.2 Use of (Di)fluorophosgene Equivalents 2.2.1 From Isocyanates and Thioformamides 2.2.2 From Amines 2.3 Use of Difluorocarbene Sources 2.4 Use of CO2 and Deoxyfluorinating Reagents 2.5 Miscellaneous Methods 3 Reactivity of Carbamoyl Fluorides 3.1 Covalent Inhibition of Enzymes 3.2 Nucleophilic Substitution 3.3 Transition-Metal-Catalyzed C–F Bond Activation 3.4 Lewis Acid and Base Catalyzed Carbamoylation 4.0 Outlook and 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".