Silsesquioxane Models for Geminal Silica Surface Silanol Sites. A Spectroscopic Investigation of Different Types of Silanols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incompletely condensed monosilylated silsesquioxanes (c-C5H9)7Si7O9(OSiRR'2)(OH)2 (SiRR'2 = SiMe3, SiMe2C(H)CH2, SiMePh2) were reacted with SiCl(4) in the presence of an amine which yielded the dichloro compounds (c-C5H9)7Si7O9(OSiRR'2)O2SiCl2 (1-3). These compounds could be hydrolyzed into the corresponding silsesquioxanes containing geminal silanols, (c-C5H9)7Si7O9(OSiRR'2)O2Si(OH)2 (4-6). At elevated temperatures, the geminal silsesquioxanes 4 and 5 undergo condensation reactions and form the closed-cage silsesquioxane monosilanol, (c-C5H9)7Si8O12(OH). The more sterically hindered geminal silsesquioxane 6 undergoes in solution intermolecular dehydroxylation, yielding the thermodynamically stable dimeric disilanol, [(c-C5H9)7Si7O9(OSiMePh2)(O2Si(OH)-)]2-(mu-O) (7). NMR and FT-IR studies show that the two silanols of the geminal silsesquioxanes 4-6 are different from each other with respect to hydrogen bonding, both in solution and in the solid state. Hydrogen bonding of the geminal silanol-containing silsesquioxanes was examined and compared to hydrogen bonding in silsesquioxanes possessing vicinal or isolated silanol groups. The relative Brønsted acidity of the geminal silanols was determined using pK(ip) (ion-pair acidity) measurements in THF with UV-vis. These acidities were compared with those of other silsesquioxanes containing silanol groups. Acidities of 4-6 were found to be among the lowest known for silsesquioxanes.
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".