Mixed‐Donor Amido–Siloxo Actinide(IV) Halide and Alkyl Complexes with an Aryl C<i><sub>ipso</sub></i> Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The synthesis and characterisation of a series of new actinide(IV) complexes supported by the mixed‐donor amido–amino–siloxo framework [RN(Li)SiMe 2 N(R)SiMe 2 OLi] ([ R NNO]Li 2 ; R = 2,4,6‐Me 3 Ph, 2,6‐ i Pr 2 Ph) are presented. The reaction of 1 equiv. of [ R NNO]Li 2 with ThCl 4 · 2DME (DME = 1,2‐dimethoxyethane) in DME generated {Li · n DME}{[ R NNO] 2 Th 2 Cl 5 } ( 1 : R = 2,4,6‐Me 3 Ph, n = 2; 2 : R = 2,6‐ i Pr 2 Ph, n = 3) in high yield, and the addition of [ NNO]Li 2 to UCl 4 in tetrahydrofuran (THF) resulted in the formation of {[ NNO]UCl 3 Li · THF} 2 ( 3 ). The structures of 1–3 indicate that they retain LiCl as “ate” complexes. The addition of 2 equiv. of [ NNO]Li 2 to ThCl 4 · 2DME and UCl 4 gives the bis‐ligated complexes [ NNO] 2 ThClLi ( 4 ) and [ NNO] 2 U ( 5 ), respectively. In 1 – 5 , the [ R NNO] 2– ligands all coordinate through the amido and siloxo donors as well as the ipso carbon atom of the phenyl group of the amido ligand but not through the central amino group. Complex 3 can be alkylated through the addition of 2 equiv. of LiCH 2 SiMe 3 to give [ NNO]U(CH 2 SiMe 3 ) 2 ( 6 ) or NaCp (Cp = cyclopentadienyl) to give [ NNO]UCp 2 ( 7 ); the latter has been structurally characterised.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".