A study of M–X–BR3 (M = Pt, Pd or Rh; X = Cl or I) interactions in square planar ambiphilic ligand complexes: structural, spectroscopic, electrochemical and computational comparisons with borane-free analogues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reaction of [PtCl(2)(COD)] and [PtI(2)(COD)] with 2,7-di-tert-butyl-5-diphenylboryl-4-diphenylphosphino-9,9-dimethylthioxanthene (TXPB) afforded square planar [PtCl(2)(TXPB)] (1B) and [PtI(2)(TXPB)] (4B), both of which were crystallographically characterized. Single-crystal X-ray quality crystals were also obtained for [PdCl(2)(TXPB)] (2B; Emslie et al., Organometallics, 2008, 27, 5317) as 2B·2CH(2)Cl(2) and solvent-free 2B. Both the chloro and iodo TXPB complexes exhibit metal-halide-borane bridging interactions similar to those in previously reported [RhCl(CO)(TXPB)] (3B) and [RhI(CO)(TXPB)] (5B) (Emslie et al., Organometallics, 2006, 25, 583 and Inorg. Chem., 2010, 49, 4060). To facilitate a more detailed analysis of M-X-BR(3) (X = Cl and I) interactions, a borane-free analogue of the TXPB ligand, 2,7-di-tert-butyl-4-diphenylphosphino-9,9-dimethylthioxanthene (TXPH), was prepared. Reaction with [PtX(2)(COD)] (X = Cl or I), [PdCl(2)(COD)] and 0.5 [{RhCl(CO)(2)}(2)] provided square planar [PtCl(2)(TXPH)] (1H), [PdCl(2)(TXPH)] (2H), [RhCl(CO)(TXPH)] (3H) and [PtI(2)(TXPH)] (4H). M-Cl-BR(3) and M-I-BR(3) bonding in 1B-5B was then probed through the use of structural comparisons, IR and NMR spectroscopy, cyclic voltammetry, and DFT calculations (Slater-type orbitals, Mayer bond orders, Hirshfeld charges, fragment analysis, SCF deformation density isosurfaces, and energy decomposition analysis).
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".