18‐Crown‐6 and Titanium Tetrafluoride − Preparation of the Ti<sup>IV</sup> Fluoride Crown Ether Complexes (TiF<sub>4</sub>)<sub>2</sub>(18‐Crown‐6) and the Stabilization of <i>cis‐</i>TiF<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub> in [{<i>cis‐</i>TiF<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub>}<sub>2</sub>(18‐Crown‐6)]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reaction of TiF4 and 18‐crown‐6 in MeCN affords the molecular complex [(cis‐TiF4)2(18‐crown‐6)] (1) only. Water and THF displace the 18‐crown‐6 in the tetrafluoro complex 1, with the formation of cis‐TiF4L2. The complex cis‐TiF4(H2O)2 and 18‐crown‐6 form [{cis‐TiF4(H2O)2}2(18‐crown‐6)] (2), in which cis‐TiF4(H2O)2 and 18‐crown‐6 are connected by hydrogen bonding through the protons of coordinated H2O in TiF4(H2O)2 and the oxygen atoms of the crown ether. Complexes 1 and 2 were characterized by X‐ray single crystal analysis, elemental analysis, IR, NMR and Mass spectroscopy. The relative basicities of the 18‐crown‐6 and the molecular donor ligands MeCN, THF, H2O toward TiIV fluoride were established by NMR spectroscopic investigations of the substitution reactions. 18‐crown‐6 is slightly more basic than MeCN, similar to that of Et2O, and less basic than THF and H2O. (© Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2004)
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) | 0.002 | 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".