Tuning Lewis acidity using the reactivity of “frustrated Lewis pairs”: facile formation of phosphine-boranes and cationic phosphonium-boranes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of "frustrated Lewis pairs" involves donor and acceptor sites in which steric congestion precludes Lewis acid-base adduct formation. In the case of sterically demanding phosphines and boranes, this lack of self-quenching prompts nucleophilic attack at a carbon para to B followed by fluoride transfer affording zwitterionic phosphonium borates [R(3)P(C(6)F(4))BF(C(6)F(5))(2)] and [R(2)PH(C(6)F(4))BF(C(6)F(5))(2)]. These can be easily transformed into the cationic phosphonium-boranes [R(3)P(C(6)F(4))B(C(6)F(5))(2)](+) and [R(2)PH(C(6)F(4))B(C(6)F(5))(2)](+) or into the neutral phosphino-boranes R(2)P(C(6)F(4))B(C(6)F(5))(2). This new reactivity provides a modular route to a family of boranes in which the steric features about the Lewis acidic center remains constant and yet the variation in substitution provides a facile avenue for the tuning of the Lewis acidity. Employing the Gutmann-Beckett and Childs methods for determining Lewis acid strength, it is demonstrated that the cationic boranes are much more Lewis acidic than B(C(6)F(5))(3), while the acidity of the phosphine-boranes is diminished.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 it