Chloro boron subphthalocyanine and its derivatives: dyes, pigments or somewhere in between?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine derivatives of chloro boron subphthalocyanine (Cl-BsubPc, 1) have been synthesized and characterized. Seven dimers of Cl-BsubPc have been synthesized by reaction with biphenol (2a), bisphenol A (2b), bisphenol F (2c), bisphenol O (2d), bisphenol P (2e), bisphenol S (2f) and bisphenol Z (2g). For comparison two monomeric phenoxy- (3a) and 4-methylphenoxy (3b) BsubPcs have also been synthesized. Crystals were grown for dimer 2c, whereas all attempts to grow crystals of the remaining dimers resulted in the formation of molecular glasses or amorphous precipitates. Analysis on the structure of 2c suggests that the rigidity and aromatic nature of the central bisphenolic directs the crystal packing. The solubility of the BsubPc dimers in a variety of common organic solvents was measured and compared to that of Cl-BsubPc (2) and monomers 3a and 3b. We have defined ranges for classifying BsubPc derivatives based on their solubility in these solvents: pigment < or = 1 x 10(-8) M, 1 x 10(-3) M < or = pigment-like > 1 x 10(-8) M, 1 x 10(-2) M < or = dye-like > 1 x 10(-3) M, and dye > 1 x 10(-2) M. From this Cl-BsubPc (1) and compounds 2a, 2b, 2c, 2e and 2g are pigment-like while compounds 2d, 2f, 3a and 3b are dye-like. None are exclusively pigments or dyes. In this first approximation of this dye versus pigment classification we have not considered other processes besides solvation which could be undesirable such as polymorphic changes or Ostwald ripening. We have concluded that derivatization of Cl-BsubPc (1) with bisphenols and phenols can be used to control the solubility of BsubPc derivatives. We have also concluded that Cl-BsubPc (1) should not be considered a dye rather is pigment-like in its solubility.
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".