From Classical Adducts to Frustrated Lewis Pairs: Steric Effects in the Interactions of Pyridines and B(C<sub>6</sub>F<sub>5</sub>)<sub>3</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pyridine adducts of B(C(6)F(5))(3), (4-tBu)C(5)H(4)NB(C(6)F(5))(3) 1, ((2-Me)C(5)H(4)N)B(C(6)F(5))(3) 2, ((2-Et)C(5)H(4)N)B(C(6)F(5))(3) 3, ((2-Ph)C(5)H(4)N)B(C(6)F(5))(3) 4, ((2-C(5)H(4)N)C(5)H(4)N)B(C(6)F(5))(3) 5, (C(9)H(7)N)B(C(6)F(5))(3) 6, and ((2-C(5)H(4)N)NH(2-C(5)H(4)N))B(C(6)F(5))(3) 7, were prepared and characterized. The B-N bond lengths in 2-7 reflect the impact of ortho-substitution, increasing significantly with sterically larger and electron-withdrawing substituents. In the case of 2-amino-6-picoline, reaction with B(C(6)F(5))(3) affords the zwitterionic species (5-Me)C(5)H(3)NH(2-NH)B(C(6)F(5))(3) 8. In contrast, lutidine/B(C(6)F(5))(3) yields an equilibrium mixture containing both the free Lewis acid and base and the adduct (2,6-Me(2)C(5)H(3)N)B(C(6)F(5))(3) 9. This equilibrium has a DeltaH of -42(1) kJ/mol and DeltaS of -131(5) J/mol x K. Addition of H(2) shifts the equilibrium and yields [2,6-Me(2)C(5)H(3)NH][HB(C(6)F(5))(3)] 10. The corresponding reactions of 2,6-diphenylpyridine or 2-tert-butylpyridine with B(C(6)F(5))(3) showed no evidence of adduct formation and upon exposure to H(2) afforded [(2,6-Ph(2))C(5)H(3)NH][HB(C(6)F(5))(3)] 11 and [(2-tBu)C(5)H(4)NH][HB(C(6)F(5))(3)] 12, respectively. The energetics of adduct formation and the reactions with H(2) are probed computationally. Crystallographic data for compounds 1-10 are reported.
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) | 0.003 | 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".