The Interplay of Inverted Redox Potentials and Aromaticity in the Oxidized States of New π‐Electron Donors: 9‐(1,3‐Dithiol‐2‐ylidene)fluorene and 9‐(1,3‐Dithiol‐2‐ylidene)thioxanthene Derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Derivatives of 9-(1,3-dithiol-2-ylidene)fluorene (9) and 9-(1,3-dithiol-2-ylidene)thioxanthene (10) have been synthesised using Horner-Wadsworth-Emmons reactions of (1,3-dithiol-2-yl)phosphonate reagents with fluorenone and thioxanthen-9-one. X-ray crystallography, solution electrochemistry, optical spectroscopy, spectroelectrochemistry and simultaneous electrochemistry and electron paramagnetic resonance (SEEPR), combined with theoretical calculations performed at the B3P86/6-31G** level, elucidate the interplay of the electronic and structural properties in these molecules. These compounds are strong two-electron donors, and the oxidation potentials depend on the electronic structure of the oxidised state. Two, single-electron oxidations (E(1)ox < E(1)ox) were observed for 9-(1,3-dithiol-2-ylidene)fluorene systems (9). In contrast, derivatives of 9-(1,3-dithiol-2-ylidene)thioxanthene (10) display the unusual phenomenon of inverted potentials (E(1)ox > E(1)ox) resulting in a single, two-electron oxidation process. The latter is due to the aromatic structure of the thioxanthenium cation (formed on the loss of a second electron), which stabilises the dication state (10(2+)) compared with the radical cation. This contrasts with the nonaromatic structure of the fluorenium cation of system 9. The two-electron oxidation wave in the thioxanthene derivatives is split into two separate one-electron waves in the corresponding sulfoxide and sulfone derivatives 27-29 owing to destabilisation of the dication state.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".