Solid-State<sup>115</sup>In and<sup>31</sup>P NMR Studies of Triarylphosphine Indium Trihalide Adducts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid-state (115)In and (31)P NMR spectroscopy, relativistic density functional theory (DFT) calculations, and single-crystal X-ray diffraction were used to investigate a series of triarylphosphine indium(III) trihalide adducts, X(3)In(PR(3)) and X(3)In(PR(3))(2) (X = Cl, Br or I; PR(3) = triarylphosphine ligand). The electric field gradient tensors at indium as well as the indium and phosphorus magnetic shielding tensors and the direct and indirect (115)In-(31)P spin-spin coupling were characterized; for complexes possessing a C(3) symmetry axis, the anisotropy in the indirect spin-spin coupling, DeltaJ((115)In,(31)P), was also determined. The (115)In quadrupolar coupling constants, C(Q)((115)In), range from +/-1.25 +/- 0.10 to -166.0 +/- 2.0 MHz. For any given phosphine ligand, the indium nuclei are most shielded for X = I and least shielded for X = Cl, a trend also observed for other group-13 nuclei in M(III) complexes. This experimental trend, attributed to spin-orbit effects of the halogen ligands, is reproduced by the DFT calculations. The spans of the indium magnetic shielding tensors for these complexes, delta(11)-delta(33), range from 40 +/- 7 to 710 +/- 60 ppm; those determined for phosphorus range from 28 +/- 1.5 to 50 +/- 3 ppm. Values of (1)J((115)In,(31)P) range from 550 +/- 20 to 2500 +/- 20 Hz. For any given halide, the (1)J((115)In,(31)P) values generally increase with increasing basicity of the PR(3) ligand. Calculated values of (1)J((115)In,(31)P) and DeltaJ((115)In,(31)P) duplicate experimental trends and indicate that both the Fermi-contact and spin-dipolar Fermi-contact mechanisms make important contributions to the (1)J((115)In,(31)P) tensors.
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".