Phosphinimine–borane combinations in frustrated Lewis pair chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phosphinimines Ph(3)PNR (R = Ph 1, C(6)F(5) 2, tBu 3) are combined with B(C(6)F(5))(3) in an effort to explore the frustrated Lewis pair (FLP) chemistry. While compound 1 is shown to form an adduct with the borane, compounds 2 and 3 exhibit no apparent interaction. Nonetheless exposure of each of the three combinations to H(2) resulted in the formation of the corresponding salts [Ph(3)PN(H)R][HB(C(6)F(5))(3)] (R = Ph 5, C(6)F(5) 6, tBu 7). Reaction of 1 or 2 with B(C(6)F(5))(3) and carbon dioxide afforded Ph(3)PN(R)COOB(C(6)F(5))(3) (R = Ph 8, C(6)F(5) 9) while the corresponding reaction with 3 gave rise only to the tBuNCO and (Ph(3)PO)B(C(6)F(5))(3). Reactions of 1-3 and B(C(6)F(5))(3) with PhC≡CH proceeds to give either deprotonation or addition affording products of the form [Ph(3)PN(H)R][PhC≡CB(C(6)F(5))(3)] or (Ph(3)PNR)(Ph)C=CH(B(C(6)F(5))(3)). The factors governing the nature of the dominant products are considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".