The reaction of TiF<sub>4</sub>with Li(OC(CF<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub>Ph): direct synthetic route to the lithium–titanium heterometallic fluoride bridged complex {Li(THF)<sub>2</sub>TiF<sub>3</sub>(OC(CF<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub>Ph)<sub>2</sub>}<sub>2</sub>and Ti(OC(CF<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub>Ph)<sub>4</sub>alkoxide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reaction of TiF4 and LiORf (Rf = C(CF3)2Ph) in the donor solvent-THF lead to the isolation of the heterometallic lithium-titanium complex (THF)2Li(mu-F)2Ti(ORf)2(mu-F)2Ti(ORf)(2)(mu-F)2Li(THF)2 (1) and Ti(ORf)4 alkoxide (2). Interaction of TiF4 and LiORf in the non-coordinating and low polar toluene yielded only Ti(ORf)4 (2). Compounds 1 and 2 were characterized by X-ray single-crystal analysis, IR, NMR and mass spectrometry. Compound 1 is a centrosymmetric fluorine bridged dimer and contains the Li(mu-F)2Ti(mu-F)2Ti(mu-F)2Li cage. Complex 2 containing four bulky ligands is monomeric. NMR evidence is presented that the TiF4 and LiORf in THF solution gave lithium-titanium heterometallic complexes containing Li-(mu-F)-Ti and the Ti-(mu-F)-Ti bonds.
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 | 0.001 |
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".