Synthesis and Reactivity of the Phosphinoboranes R<sub>2</sub>PB(C<sub>6</sub>F<sub>5</sub>)<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phosphinoboranes [R(2)PB(C(6)F(5))(2)](2) (R = Et 1, Ph 2) and R(2)PB(C(6)F(5))(2) (R = tBu 3, Cy 4, Mes 5) were synthesized from the reaction of (C(6)F(5))(2)BCl and the corresponding lithium phosphide. The relationships between B-P distance, P pyramidality, and the extent of BP multiple bonding were further explored computationally. Natural Bond Order (NBO) analyses of 3 and 4 showed that the π-bonding highest occupied molecular orbitals (HOMOs) were highly polarized. In addition the Lewis acid-base adducts, R(2)(H)P·B(H)(C(6)F(5))(2) (R = Et 6; Ph 7; tBu 8; Cy 9; Mes 10) were prepared via the reaction of the phosphines R(2)PH with the borane HB(C(6)F(5))(2). Compounds 1 and 2 showed no signs of reaction with H(2); however, reaction of compounds 3 and 4 with H(2) was observed to give 8 and 9. In a related set of reactions compounds 3 and 4 were reacted with H(3)NBH(3) or Me(2)(H)NBH(3) also led to the generation of 8 and 9, respectively. The reaction profile of the reaction of (CF(3))(2)BPR(2) with H(2) was examined computationally and shown to be exothermic. Efforts to effect the reverse reaction, that is, dehydrogenation of adducts 6-10 were unsuccessful. Compound 4 was also shown to react with 4-tert-butylpyridine to give Cy(2)PB(C(6)F(5))(2)(4-tBuC(5)H(4)N) 11 while reactions of 3 and 4 with the Lewis acid BCl(3) gave the dimers (R(2)PBCl(2))(2) (R = tBu 12, Cy 13) and the byproduct ClB(C(6)F(5))(2).
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".