In Search of the [PhB(μ-N<i><sup>t</sup></i>Bu)<sub>2</sub>]<sub>2</sub>As<sup>•</sup> Radical: Experimental and Computational Investigations of the Redox Chemistry of Group 15 Bis-boraamidinates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DFT calculations for the group 15 radicals [PhB(mu-N(t)Bu)2]2M. (M = P, As, Sb, Bi) predict a pnictogen-centered SOMO with smaller contributions to the unpaired spin density arising from the nitrogen and boron atoms. The reactions of Li 2[PhB(mu-NR)2] (R = (t)Bu, Dipp) with PCl 3 afforded the unsolvated complex LiP[PhB(mu-N(t)Bu)2] 2 ( 1a) in low yield and ClP[PhB(mu-NDipp)2] (2), both of which were structurally characterized. Efforts to produce the arsenic-centered neutral radical, [PhB(mu-N (t) Bu) 2] 2As., via oxidation of LiAs[PhB(mu-N(t)Bu)2]2 with one-half equivalent of SO 2Cl 2, yielded the Zwitterionic compound [PhB(mu-N (t) Bu) 2As(mu-N(t)Bu)2B(Cl)Ph] (3) containing one four-coordinate boron center with a B-Cl bond. The reaction of 3 with GaCl3 produced the ion-separated salt, [PhB(mu-N(t)Bu)2] 2As (+)GaCl 4 (-) ( 4), which was characterized by X-ray crystallography. The reduction of 3 with sodium naphthalenide occurred by a two-electron process to give the corresponding anion [{PhB(mu-N(t)Bu)2} 2As] (-) as the sodium salt. Voltammetric investigations of 4 and LiAs[PhB(mu-N (t) Bu) 2] 2 ( 1b) revealed irreversible processes. Attempts to generate the neutral radical [PhB(mu-N(t)Bu)2] 2As. from these ionic complexes via in situ electrolysis did not produce an EPR-active species.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".