Experimental and Theoretical Investigations of Structural Isomers of Dichalcogenoimidodiphosphinate Dimers: Dichalcogenides or Spirocyclic Contact Ion Pairs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A synthetic protocol for the tert-butyl-substituted dichalcogenoimidodiphosphinates [Na(tmeda){(EPtBu(2))(2)N}] (3 a, E=S; 3 b, E=Se; 3 c, E=Te) has been developed. The one-electron oxidation of the sodium complexes [Na(tmeda){(EPR(2))(2)N}] with iodine produces a series of neutral dimers (EPR(2)NPR(2)E--)(2) (4 b, E=Se, R=iPr; 4 c, E=Te, R=iPr; 5 a, E=S, R=tBu; 5 b, E=Se, R=tBu; 5 c, E=Te, R=tBu). Attempts to prepare 4 a (E=S, R=iPr) in a similar manner produced a mixture including HN(SPiPr(2)). Compounds 4 b, 4 c and 5 a-c were characterised by multinuclear NMR spectra and by X-ray crystallography, which revealed two alternative structures for these dimeric molecules. The derivatives 4 b, 4 c, 5 a and 5 b exhibit acyclic structures with a central chalcogen-chalcogen linkage that is elongated by approximately 2 % (E=S), 6 % (E=Se) and 8 % (E=Te) compared to typical single-bond values. By contrast, 5 c adopts an unique spirocyclic contact ion-pair structure in which a [(TePtBu(2))(2)N](-) ion is Te,Te' chelated to an incipient [(TePtBu(2))(2)N](+) cyclic ion. DFT calculations of the relative energies of the two structural isomers indicate a trend towards increasing stability for the contact ion pair relative to the corresponding dichalcogenide on going from S to Se to Te for both the isopropyl and tert-butyl series. The two-electron oxidation of [Na(tmeda){(EPtBu(2))(2)N}] (E=S, Se, Te) with iodine produced the salts [(EPtBu(2))(2)N](+)X(-) (7 a, E=S, X=I(3); 7 b, E=Se, X=I; 7 c, E=Te, X=I), which were characterised by X-ray crystallography. Compound 7 a exists as a monomeric, ion-separated complex with [d(S--S)=2.084(2) A]; 7 b and 7 c are dimeric [d(Se--Se)=2.502(1) A; d(Te--Te)=2.884(1) A].
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".