Structural Study of Acidic Metallocavitands and Characterization of their Interactions with Lewis Bases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the synthesis and characterization of tantalum-boronate trimetallic clusters of the general formula {[Cp*Ta](3)(mu(2)-RB(O)(2))(3)(mu(2)-OH)(mu(2)-O)(2)(mu(3)-OH)} (R = i-Bu (Ta(3)-iBu), C(6)H(5) (Ta(3)-Ph), 2,5-(CH(3))(2)(C(6)H(3)) (Ta(3)-2,5Me), 3,5-(CH(3))(2)(C(6)H(3)) (Ta(3)-3,5Me), and 3,5-(CF(3))(2)(C(6)H(3)) (Ta(3)-3,5CF(3))). Three of these complexes feature a Lewis acid type cavity allowing for substrate binding in both the solid and the liquid state using a unique electrostatic interaction and a hydrogen bond. We also report the synthesis of {[Cp*Ta](2)(mu(2)-MesB(O)(2))(2)[MesB(OH)(O)](2)(mu(2)-OH)(2)} (Mes = 2,4,6-(CH(3))(3)C(6)H(2) (Ta(2)-Mes)). All complexes have been characterized by NMR and X-ray diffraction studies, and the steric and electronic effects on the boronate ligands have been investigated. The physical properties of the interaction between the tantalum-boronate clusters and tetrahydrofuran and acetone have been studied by thermogravimetric analysis, FT-IR, and Density Functional Theory calculations to characterize the molecular interactions in the resulting adducts.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".