Rational Synthesis and Mutual Conversion of Bis‐N‐heterocyclic Diphosphanes and Secondary N‐Heterocyclic Phosphanes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Symmetrical N‐heterocyclic 1,1′,3,3′‐tetrahydro‐2,2′‐bi‐1,3,2‐diazaphospholes and 2,2′‐bi‐1,3,2‐diazaphospholidines are prepared by time‐saving, sequential “one‐pot” syntheses starting from 1,4‐diazabutadienes or N ‐alkyl or N ‐aryl‐substituted ethane‐1,2‐diamines. This method offers high selectivity and minimizes the loss of products owing to unwanted hydrolysis, and thus grants high product yields. In some cases, secondary phosphanes were formed together with or instead of diphosphanes. This reaction is explained by a follow‐up process involving homolytic fission of diphosphanes to give phosphanyl radicals, which then react with ammonium salts to give a mixture of secondary phosphanes and chlorophosphanes. Even if its synthetic scope is as yet limited, this approach seems promising in offering superior selectivity and higher yields than common synthetic protocols that rely on the use of complex hydrides as reducing agents. In addition to the reductive conversion of diphosphanes into secondary phosphanes, a reverse reaction under exposure of the reactants to light is also reported.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.011 | 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 teacher head, 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".