MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416181469 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2025-0205

Evaluation of H <sub>2</sub> O <sub>2</sub> /HFIP as a convenient sulfoxidation reagent for boronate containing thioethers

2025· article· en· W4416181469 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Adam B. Riddell, Sofiia I. Pavlish, Adrian L. Schwan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Synthesis and Reactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsReagentThioetherOxidizing agentSulfoxideAlcoholDimethyl sulfoxideSulfur

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is recognized that boronic acid derivatives are often sensitive to common sulfur oxidizing reagents. In this paper the value of the H 2 O 2 /HFIP combination as a viable thioether (sulfide) monoxidation reagent is demonstrated, with the reagent system providing sulfoxide while in many cases leaving the boronate functionality unperturbed. Bpin bearing sulfides were converted to sulfoxide in 49%–86% yield, with occasional alcohol side products arising from oxidation at the boron-bearing carbon. Other boronate esters possessing chemical resilience comparable to Bpin were also amenable to the chemistry, with sulfoxides isolated in 66%–96% yield. Less robust boronic acid derivatives such as Bcat and BDan readily succumbed to alcohol conversion. Sulfides containing geminal bis(boronates) were cleanly converted to sulfoxide. The chemical yields and the convenience of this sulfoxidation procedure make this protocol attractive for the oxidation of selected boronate containing thioethers. Dedicated to the memory of Willie Leigh, a friend and mentor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicChemical Synthesis and ReactionsFrench-language works237,207