MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013245515 · doi:10.1039/b704588c

Flexible coordination of the carboxylate ligand in tin(ii) amides and a 1,3-diaza-2,4-distannacyclobutanediyl

2007· article· en· W2013245515 on OpenAlexafffund
Diane A. Dickie, Peter T. K. Lee, O.A. Labeodan, G. Schatte, Noham Weinberg, Andrew R. Lewis, Guy M. Bernard, Roderick E. Wasylishen, Jason A. C. Clyburne

Bibliographic record

VenueDalton Transactions · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCoordination Chemistry and Organometallics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser ValleyUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of SaskatchewanSaint Mary's UniversitySimon Fraser University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTinCarboxylateChemistryReactivity (psychology)Ligand (biochemistry)MoleculeStereochemistryCrystal structureCrystallographyMedicinal chemistryReceptorOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of tin(II) amido complexes possessing m-terphenyl carboxylate ligands have been prepared. These complexes, namely [(Me(3)Si)(2)NSn(mu-O(2)CC(6)H(2)Ph(3))](2), [(Me(3)Si)(2)NSn(mu-O(2)CC(6)H(3)Mes(2))](2), and [(Me(3)Si)(2)NSn(mu-O(2)CC(6)H(2)Mes(2)Me)](2) [Mes = 2,4,6-trimethylphenyl], are the first structurally characterized examples of tin(II) carboxylate complexes exhibiting discrete Sn(2)O(4)C(2) heterocyclic cores. Initial reactivity studies led to the isolation of a 1,3-diaza-2,4-distannacyclobutanediyl, [(Mes(2)C(6)H(3)CO(2))Sn(mu-NSiMe(3))](2). This molecule possesses a Sn(2)N(2) heterocyclic core and it was crystallised as both the CH(2)Cl(2) and Et(2)O solvates. Although the tin atoms in this molecule have a formal oxidation state of 3+, preliminary computational studies on this molecule suggest that it is best described as a ground state singlet. Finally, the X-ray crystal structure of (CH(2)Cl)(Cl)Sn[N(SiMe(3))(2)](2), the product of oxidative addition of CH(2)Cl(2) to Sn[N(SiMe(3))(2)](2), is also presented herein.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDalton TransactionsSame topicCoordination Chemistry and OrganometallicsFrench-language works237,207