Solid‐state <sup>11</sup>B and <sup>13</sup>C NMR, IR, and X‐ray crystallographic characterization of selected arylboronic acids and their catechol cyclic esters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine arylboronic acids, seven arylboronic catechol cyclic esters, and two trimeric arylboronic anhydrides (boroxines) are investigated using (11)B solid-state NMR spectroscopy at three different magnetic field strengths (9.4, 11.7, and 21.1 T). Through the analysis of spectra of static and magic-angle spinning samples, the (11)B electric field gradient and chemical shift tensors are determined. The effects of relaxation anisotropy and nutation field strength on the (11)B NMR line shapes are investigated. Infrared spectroscopy was also used to help identify peaks in the NMR spectra as being due to the anhydride form in some of the arylboronic acid samples. Seven new X-ray crystallographic structures are reported. Calculations of the (11)B NMR parameters are performed using cluster model and periodic gauge-including projector-augmented wave (GIPAW) density functional theory (DFT) approaches, and the results are compared with the experimental values. Carbon-13 solid-state NMR experiments and spectral simulations are applied to determine the chemical shifts of the ipso carbons of the samples. One bond indirect (13)C-(11)B spin-spin (J) coupling constants are also measured experimentally and compared with calculated values. The (11)B/(10)B isotope effect on the (13)C chemical shift of the ipso carbons of arylboronic acids and their catechol esters, as well as residual dipolar coupling, is discussed. Overall, this combined X-ray, NMR, IR, and computational study provides valuable new insights into the relationship between NMR parameters and the structure of boronic acids and esters.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".