Superamidines 2. Synthesis of the bulky ligand <i>N</i>,<i>N</i>'-bis-(2,6-diisopropylphenyl)-trifluoroacetamidine and its molybdenum carbonyl complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
N,N'-bis-(2,6-diisopropylphenyl)trifluoroacetamidine has been prepared for the first time from 2,6-diisopropylaniline and the trifluoroacylation reagent TFAP via the imidoylchloride. The crystal structure of the amidine was determined, indicating that it crystallizes in the Z-anti tautomer, in contrast to the nonfluorinated analogue, which is E-anti in the solid state. In solution, as indicated by NMR spectroscopy, it exists in two isomeric forms. The amidine reacts with Mo(CO)6 to produce a coordination complex with Mo(CO)3 in which the ligand is also in the Z-anti geometry, the metal is η6-coordinated to the imino-2,6-diisopropylphenyl ring, and the amino N-H unit is directed towards the metal, as determined by a single-crystal X-ray structure. Unlike the analogous nonfluorinated acetamidine, there is no indication of an intermediate in which the neutral amidine is coordinated in a monodentate fashion to an Mo(CO)5 unit, which we now attribute to the predominant geometry of the ligand, both in the solid state and in solution, being Z-anti. The high steric bulk of this superamidine ligand apparently prevents the formation of a metal-metal bonded Mo2(amidinate)4 as observed previously in a redox reaction between N,N'-diphenylbenzamidine and Mo(CO)6 under similar thermal reaction conditions.Key words: trifluoromethyl, superamidine, amidine, molybdenum, carbonyl, coordination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".