Non‐Innocent Ligand Effects on Low‐Oxidation‐State Indium Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attempts to coordinate neutral ligands to low oxidation state indium centers are often hindered by disproportionation pathways that produce elemental indium and higher oxidation state species. In contrast, we find that reactions of the salt, InOTf (OTf=trifluoromethanesulfonate), with α-diimine ligands yielded intensely colored compounds with no evidence of decomposition. X-ray structural analysis of InOTf⋅(Mes) DAB(Me) ((Mes) DAB(Me) =N,N-dimesityl-2,3-dimethyl-diazabutadiene; 1) reveals a discrete molecular compound with a pyramidal coordination environment at the indium center, consistent with the presence of a stereochemically active lone pair of electrons on indium and a neutral diazabutadiene chelate ligand. The use of the less-electron-rich (Mes) DAB(H) ligand ((Mes) DAB(H) =N,N-dimesityl-diazabutadiene) engenders dramatically different reactivity and produces a metallopolymer (InOTf⋅(Mes) DAB(H) )∞ (2) linked via CC and InIn bonds. The difference in reactivity is rationalized by cyclic voltammetry and DFT studies that suggest more facile electron transfer from In(I) to the (Mes) DAB(H) and bis(aryl)acenaphthenequinonediimine (BIAN) ligands. Solution EPR spectroscopy indicates the presence of non-interacting ligand-based radicals in solution, whereas solid-state EPR studies reflect the presence of a thermally accessible spin triplet consistent with reversible CC bond cleavage.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".