Zinc Complexes of Piperazinyl‐Derived Aminephenolate Ligands: Synthesis, Characterization and Ring–Opening Polymerization Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A series of zinc complexes was prepared from 4,6‐disubstituted (R,R′) o ‐[(4‐methyl‐1‐piperazinyl)methyl]phenols ([ONN R′,R ]H) and characterized by elemental analysis, 1 H and 13 C{ 1 H} NMR spectroscopy, and X‐ray crystallography. Reaction of these products with diethylzinc gave Zn[ONN t Bu, t Bu ] 2 ( 1 ) as a monometallic complex and {[μ‐ONN R′,R ]ZnEt} 2 [R′ = Me, R = t Bu, ( 2 ); R′ = R = t Bu ( 3 ); R′ = R = t Am ( 4 )] bimetallic species that have distorted tetrahedral environments about the Zn centres. Reaction of 3 and 4 with alcohols gave {[ONN t Am, t Am ]Zn(μ‐OR″)} 2 [R″ = Bn ( 5 ); R″ = Et ( 6 )] bimetallic species in which the Zn centres are bridged by benzyl alkoxide and ethoxide groups, respectively. A morpholinyl derived ligand was also synthesized and characterized ( L4 H), and its 1:1 stoichiometric reaction with ZnEt 2 resulted in complex 7 , {[μ‐ONO t Bu, t Bu ]ZnEt} 2 . The reactivity of complexes 2 – 7 in the ring‐opening polymerization of rac ‐lactide (LA) and ϵ‐caprolactone (ϵ‐CL) was studied. Reactions of carbon dioxide with cyclohexene oxide in the presence of 6 or 7 /ROH (R = Bn, Et) afforded cyclohexene carbonate.
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".