The use of a chiral borate counteranion as a <sup>1</sup>H NMR shift reagent for cationic copper(I) complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chiral borate counteranion bis[(R)-1,1′-bi-2-naphtholato]borate (1 ) has been found to be a competent chiral 1 H NMR shift reagent for cationic copper(I) complexes. This has been demonstrated by the addition of the Cu(NCMe) 4 + salt of 1 to two classes of common chiral ligands in asymmetric catalysis: 2,2′-bis(di-p-tolylphosphino)-1,1′-binaphthyl (tol-BINAP) (2) and 2,2′-isopropylidenebis(4-phenyl-2-oxazoline) (3). In the case of ligand 2, the addition of 1 equiv. of either (R,R)-2 or (S,S)-2 to Cu(NCMe) 4 + 1 results in well-resolved 1 H NMR resonances for the two enantiomers. Examination of standard solutions of non-enantiopure 2 shows that the copper complex can be an effective NMR shift reagent of a wide range of enantiomeric compositions. Cu(NCMe) 4 + 1 also generates distinct 1 H NMR resonances for the two separate enantiomers of 2,2′-isopropylidenebis(4-phenyl-2-oxazoline) (3). However, attempts to employ this copper salt as a chiral NMR shift reagent for rac-3 led to the discovery of a new and unexpected equilibrium: [(R,R)-3]Cu + + [(S,S)-3]Cu + [Formula: see text] [(R,R)-3][(S,S)-3]Cu + + Cu + . Key words: chiral counteranion, copper, chiral NMR shift reagent, ion pairing.
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) | 0.000 | 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".