Rigid NON- and NSN-ligand complexes of tetravalent and trivalent uranium: comparison of U–OAr2 and U–SAr2 bonding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rigid NSN-donor proligand, 4,5-bis(2,6-diisopropylanilino)-2,7-di-tert-butyl-9,9-dimethylthioxanthene (H(2)[TXA(2)], 1) was prepared by palladium-catalyzed coupling of 2,6-diisopropylaniline with 4,5-dibromo-2,7-di-tert-butyl-9,9-dimethylthioxanthene. Deprotonation of 1 using (n)BuLi provided Li(2)(DME)(2)[TXA(2)] (2), and subsequent reaction with UCl(4) afforded [Li(DME)(3)][(TXA(2))UCl(3)] (4). The analogous NON-donor ligated complex [(XA(2))UCl(3)K(DME)(3)] [3; XA(2) = 4,5-bis(2,6-diisopropylanilino)-2,7-di-tert-butyl-9,9-dimethylxanthene] was prepared by the reaction of K(2)(DME)(x)[XA(2)] with UCl(4). A cyclic voltammogram (CV) of 3 in THF/[NBu(4)][B(C(6)F(5))(4)] at 200 mV s(-1) showed an irreversible reduction to uranium(III) at E(pc) = -2.46 V versus FeCp(2)(0/+1), followed by a product wave at E(1/2) = -1.83 V. Complex 4 also underwent irreversible reduction to uranium(iii) [E(pc) = -2.56 V], resulting in an irreversible product peak at E(pa) = -1.83 V. One-electron reduction of complexes 3 and 4 using K(naphthalenide) under an argon atmosphere in DME yielded 6-coordinate [(XA(2))UCl(DME)] (5) and the thermally unstable 7-coordinate [(TXA(2))U(DME)Cl(2)Li(DME)(2)] (6), respectively. The U-S distances in 4 and 6 are uncommonly short, the C-S-U angles are unusually acute, and the thioxanthene backbone of the TXA(2) ligand is significantly bent. By contrast, the xanthene backbone in XA(2) complexes 3 and 5 is planar. However, κ(3)-coordination and an approximately meridional arrangement of the ancillary ligand donor atoms is maintained in all complexes. DFT and Atoms in Molecules (AIM) calculations were carried out on 3, 4, 5, 6, [(XA(2))UCl(3)](-) (3B), [(TXA(2))UCl(2)(DME)](-) (6B) and [(TXA(2))UCl(DME)] (6C) to probe the extent of covalency in U-SAr(2) bonding relative to U-OAr(2) bonding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".