Substituent Effects on Indium−Phosphorus Bonding in (4-RC<sub>6</sub>H<sub>4</sub>S)<sub>3</sub>In·PR‘<sub>3</sub> Adducts (R = H, Me, F; R‘ = Et, Cy, Ph): A Spectroscopic, Structural, and Thermal Decomposition Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tris(arylthiolate)indium(III) complexes (4-RC(6)H(4)S)(3)In [R = H (5), Me (6), F (7)] were prepared from the 2:3 reaction of elemental indium and the corresponding aryl disulfide in methanol. Reaction of 5-7 with 2 equiv of the appropriate triorganylphosphine in benzene or toluene resulted in isolation of the indium-phosphine adduct series (4-RC(6)H(4)S)(3)In.PR'(3) [R = H, R' = Et (5a), Cy (5b), Ph (5c); R = Me, R' = Et (6a), Cy (6b), Ph (6c); R = F, R' = Et (7a), Cy (7b), Ph (7c)]. These compounds were characterized via elemental analysis, FT-IR, FT-Raman, solution (1)H, (13)C{(1)H}, (31)P{(1)H}, and (19)F (7a-c) NMR spectroscopy, and X-ray crystallography (5c, 6a, 6c, and 7a). NMR spectra show retention of the In-P bond in benzene-d(6) solution, with phosphine (31)P{(1)H} signals shifted downfield compared to the uncoordinated ligand. The X-ray structures show monomeric 1:1 adduct complexes in all cases. The In-P bond distance [2.5863(5)-2.6493(12) A] is influenced significantly by the phosphine substituents but is unaffected by the substituted phenylthiolate ligand. Relatively low melting points (88-130 degrees C) are observed for all adducts, while high-temperature thermal decomposition is observed for the indium thiolate reactants 5-7. DSC/TGA and EI-MS data show a two-step thermal decomposition process, involving an initial loss of the phosphine moiety followed by loss of thiolate ligand.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".