Lewis base complexes of AlH3: prediction of preferred structure and stoichiometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structures adopted by a range of complexes AlH3·nL, (n = 1 or 2), have been explored in detail to identify the factors that determine the value of n, and whether a monomeric or dimeric arrangement is preferred for the 1 : 1 complexes. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction, vibrational and NMR spectroscopies, and thermal analysis data have been collected, DFT calculations have been performed for AlH3·nL species, and pK(a) values have been collated for a series of amine and phosphine ligands L. The pK(a) of the ligand L exerts an important influence on the type of complex formed: as the basicity of L increases, a monomeric structure is favoured over a dimeric arrangement. Dimeric amine complexes form if pK(a) < 9.76, while monomeric complexes are preferred when pK(a) > 9.99. The steric requirements of L also influence the structural preference: bulky ligands with large cone angles (>163°) tend to favour formation of monomers, while smaller cone angles (<125°) encourage the formation of dimeric or 1 : 2 adducts. The steric bulk of the ligand appears to be more important for phosphine complexes, with smaller phosphines being unable to stabilise the complex at ambient temperatures even through dimerisation. Raman spectroscopy and DFT calculations have been particularly helpful in elucidating the stoichiometric preferences of complexes that have been contentious; these include AlH3·NMe2Et, AlH3·NMe3 and AlH3·nEt2O.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".