Synthesis, spectroscopic exploration, biocidal activities, and crystal structures of 3‐(3‐fluorophenyl)‐2‐phenylpropenoic acid and trimethyltin(IV) complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ligand, 3‐(3‐fluorophenyl)‐2‐phenylpropenoic acid, [C15H11FO2] (I) was prepared by reacting equimolar amount of phenyl acetic acid with 3‐fluorobenzaldehyde (1:1) using Perkin condensation method. The trimethyltin(IV) carboxylate, [Me3SnO2FH10C15] (II) was synthesized by refluxing an equimolar (1:1) mixture of trimethyltin chloride and silver salt of the ligand acid, [C15H10FO2Ag] (Ia). The ligand and complex both were characterized by elemental analysis, IR, mass, 1H NMR, and X‐ray crystallographic data. On the basis of 1H NMR data, (2J[117/119Sn, 1H] and CSnC bond angle), it is concluded that the environment around the tin atom in solution is tetrahedral. The Infrared spectroscopic results showed that trimethyltin(IV) derivative has 5‐coordinated polymeric structure with bridging carboxylate groups in the solid state, which has been confirmed by the X‐ray crystallographic data. The crystal of ligand acid (I) is triclinic with space group Pbar1. However, the crystal of the complex (II) is monoclinic with space group C2/c. The geometry around the tin atom is distorted trigonal bipyramid with O(1) and O(2) atoms in apical positions. The ligand (I) and complex (II) were also tested for their biocidal activities. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Heteroatom Chem 15:398–406, 2004; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/hc.20032
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".