Establishing the Coordination Chemistry of Antimony(V) Cations: Systematic Assessment of Ph<sub>4</sub>Sb(OTf) and Ph<sub>3</sub>Sb(OTf)<sub>2</sub> as Lewis Acceptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coordination chemistry of the stiboranes Ph4 Sb(OTf) (1 a, OTf = OSO2 CF3 ) and Ph3 Sb(OTf)2 (3) with Lewis bases has been investigated. The significant steric encumbrance of the Sb center in 1 a precludes interaction with most ligands, but the relatively low steric demands of 4-methylpyridine-N-oxide (OPyrMe) and OPMe3 enabled the characterization of [Ph4 Sb(OPyrMe)][OTf] (2 a) and [Ph4 Sb(OPMe3 )][OTf] (2 b), rare examples of structurally characterized complexes of stibonium acceptors. In contrast, 3 was found to engage a variety of Lewis bases, forming stable isolable complexes of the form [Ph3 Sb(donor)2 ][OTf]2 [donor=OPMe3 (6 a), OPCy3 (6 b, Cy=cyclohexyl), OPPh3 (6 c), OPyrMe (6 d)], [Ph3 Sb(dmap)2 (OTf)][OTf] (6 e, dmap=4-(dimethylamino)pyridine) and [Ph3 Sb(donor)(OTf)][OTf] [donor=1,10-phenanthroline (7 a) or 2,2'-bipy (7 b, bipy=bipyridine)]. These compounds exhibit significant structural diversity in the solid-state, and undergo ligand exchange reactions in line with their assignment as coordination complexes. Compound 3 did not form stable complexes with phosphine donors, with reactions instead leading to redox processes yielding SbPh3 and products of phosphine oxidation.
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".