On the Interaction of Acetone with Electrophilic Metallocavitands Having Extended Cavities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the synthesis and characterization of tantalum-boronate trimetallic clusters of general formula {[Cp*Ta](3)(μ(2)-RB(O)(2))(3)(μ(2)-OH)(μ(2)-O)(2)(μ(3)-OH)} (R= 4-(C(6)H(5))(C(6)H(4)) (Ta(3)-4Ph), 4-(C(6)H(5)O)(C(6)H(4)) (Ta(3)-4OPh), 4-(C(7)H(7)O)(C(6)H(4)) (Ta(3)-4OBn), 4-(C(8)H(5))(C(6)H(4)) (Ta(3)-4PhEt), and 4-(C(12)H(7))(C(6)H(4)) (Ta(3)-4Napht)). All complexes have been characterized by NMR spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction. The trimetallic species feature a large Lewis acid type cavity allowing for substrate binding in both the solid and the liquid state using a unique electrostatic interaction and a hydrogen bond. ΔH° and ΔS° values for association of acetone with the complexes vary between -2.0 and -4.1 kcal·mol(-1) and -3 and 2 cal·mol(-1)·K(-1), respectively, showing weaker binding than smaller cavitands of the same type. The barrier for acetone exchange at equilibrium is similar for all complexes, and ΔH(‡) values vary between 8.2 and 11.4 kcal·mol(-1).
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) | 0.002 | 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".