β-Diketiminato Scandium Chemistry: Synthesis, Characterization, and Thermal Behavior of Primary Amido Alkyl Derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment of the β-diketiminato-supported scandium dichlorides {[ArNC(R)CHC(R)NAr]ScCl 2 } n (Ar = 2,6- i Pr 2 -C 6 H 3; R = CH 3, 1a, n = 2; R = t Bu, 1b, n = 1) with 1 equiv of a lithium amide reagent LiN(H)R‘ (R‘ = t Bu, 2,6- i Pr 2 -C 6 H 3 ) gave scandium amido derivatives. For 1a, use of LiN(H) t Bu leads to the bis-amido derivative ( 6a ) regardless of the equivalency of amide reagent employed, suggesting that facile ligand redistribution processes are operative when the ligand is the less bulky methyl-substituted example. For 1b, mono-amido chlorides 2b (R‘ = t Bu) and 3b (R‘ = 2,6- i Pr 2 -C 6 H 3 ) are obtained in good yields, and these compounds can be alkylated with MeLi to provide mono-amido methyl compounds 4b (R‘ = t Bu) and 5b (R‘ = 2,6- i Pr 2 -C 6 H 3 ). All four of these compounds were characterized crystallographically. The amido ligand occupies the exo coordination site exclusively, and there is no evidence in solution for a diastereomer with the amido group in the endo site. DFT calculations suggest that there is a strong steric preference and a slight electronic bias for the amido ligand to assume the exo position. Thermolysis of the amido methyl complex 4b leads to loss of CH 4 and production of a scandacylic product, 7, formed via metalation with one of the N -aryl isopropyl methyl groups. This compound was characterized crystallographically. Deuterium labeling experiments suggest that 7 is produced via direct metalation and does not form via a scandium imido intermediate.
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 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) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".