The tuning of P-donor ligands: the aryl and other pendent group effects (PGEs) revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic and steric effects of P-donor ligands can be modified by varying the pendent groups attached to the phosphorus atoms. However, the so-called "Aryl Effects" of phosphites and other P-donor ligands that contain no aryl groups can be shown simply to be additional examples of electronic Pendent Group Effects (PGEs) by which effects are transmitted to the phosphorus atoms or through them. These effects are quite distinct from those caused by varying sigma-donicity and pi-acidity parameters, and are strictly proportional to the number of pendent groups of a particular type. In each case, the extent of the effect is determined by the difference between the actual property observed and that predicted on the basis that the ligand behaves in the same way as alkyl phosphines after allowing for steric and pi-acidity effects. The PGEs are therefore unique to particular pendent groups and to the method of measuring their effects. They are not "parameters" in the sense of being generally applicable in Linear Free Energy Relationships. The PGEs of a variety of pendent groups are derived from the so-called "aryl effects" determined by Giering & Prock et al. for vertical ionization potentials (IPs) and some other properties of the P-donor ligands. In almost all cases the IPs are reduced by the PGEs, and the extent of the reduction (in eV) decreases in the sequence C(6)F(5) (-0.67) approximately Cl (-0.67) < Pyrr (-0.53) < Ph (-0.49) < OR (-0.19) < OCH(2)CH(2)Cl (-0.07) < etpb (-0.03) < N(C(4)H(8)) (+0.01). Different PGEs are found for other P-donor-dependent properties although they are simply related to each other.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".