(1,10-Phenanthroline)(trifluoromethyl)(triphenylphosphine)copper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[1334890-93-5] (C31H23CuF3N2P) (MW 575.04) InChI = 1S/C18H15P.C12H8N2.CF3.Cu/c1-4-10-16(11-5-1)19(17-12-6-2-7-13-17)18-14-8-3-9-15-18;1-3-9-5-6-10-4-2-8-14-12(10)11(9)13-7-1;2-1(3)4;/h1-15H;1-8H;;/q;;;-1/p+1 InChIKey = VGOMSSCLTIMYED-UHFFFAOYSA-O (an air-stable Cu(I) trifluoromethylating reagent1) Physical Data: dark orange-red solid. Solubility: soluble in dimethylformamide. Preparative Method: prepared by the reaction between 1,10-Phenanthroline and (Trifluoromethyl)tris(triphenylphosphine)copper in dry dichloromethane (0.1 M) at room temperature. After 30 min of stirring, several portions of diethyl ether are added to the red-orange solution to induce crystallization, and the solid (1,10-phenanthroline)(trifluoromethyl)(triphenylphosphine)copper (complex 1 or [(phen)Cu(PPh3)(CF3)]) is separated by decantation, washed with diethyl ether, and then dried under vacuum. The yield ranges between 75–80%.1 Analysis of Reagent Purity: 1H NMR (CD2Cl2, 25 °C): δ 9.0 (br S, 2H, phen), 8.3 (d, J = 7 Hz, 2H, phen), 7.8 (br s, 2H, phen), 7.6 (dd, J = 9 and 5 Hz, 2H, phen), 7.4–7.2 (br s, 15H, PPh3) ppm. 19F NMR (CD2Cl2, 25 °C): δ−23.6 (major, s, CuCF3), −31.0 ppm (minor, s, [Cu(CF3)2]−). 31P NMR (CD2Cl2, 25 °C): δ 2.0 ppm (br s). Elemental analysis: calc. for C31H23CuF3N2P: C 64.8, H 4.0, N 4.9, found C 65.0, H 4.0, N 4.7. Handling, Storage, and Precautions: the solid can be handled under air for up to a month without decomposition. The solution of the complex is sensitive to oxygen and moisture.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
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".