Synthesis and Reactivity of <i>o</i>-Benzylphosphino- and <i>o</i>-α-Methylbenzyl(<i>N</i>,<i>N</i>-dimethyl)amine-Boranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The series of o-benzylphosphino-boranes, o-(R(2)B)C(6)H(4)CH(2)PtBu(2) (R = Cl 3, Ph 4, Cy 6, C(6)F(5) 7, Mes 8) and o-(BBN)C(6)H(4)CH(2)PtBu(2) (5), were synthesized from reactions of the respective chloroboranes with the lithiated benzyl-phosphine. In an analogous fashion, the α-methylbenzyl(N,N-dimethyl)amine-boranes o-(R(2)B)C(6)H(4)CH(Me)NMe(2) (R = Cl 10, Ph 11, Cy 12, C(6)F(5) 13, Mes 14) were prepared. While these species were inactive in the catalytic hydrogenation of tBuN═CHPh, compounds 7, 8, and 14 did react with H(2) at elevated temperatures (100 °C), resulting in the elimination of HC(6)F(5) and mesitylene, respectively. In the latter case, the species o-((Mes)HB)C(6)H(4)CH(Me)NMe(2) 15 was isolated. 14 was also shown to react with H(2)O to give the species o-((Mes)(HO)B)C(6)H(4)CH(Me)NMe(2) 16 with the loss of mesitylene. The structure of these compounds and the nature of these reactions were also probed spectroscopically, crystallographically, and computationally. The energies for the products of hydrogenation, the phosphonium and ammonium hydridoborates, were computed. In all cases, these products were endothermic with respect to the precursor phosphine-boranes and amine-boranes and H(2). The barriers to H(2) activation were found to be in the range of 24-38 kcal/mol. These theoretical studies also demonstrate that the steric bulk around the boron center dramatically affects the activation barrier for H(2) activation, while the Lewis acidity of the borane has the largest effect on the stabilization of the resulting onium-borohydride. In the case of the elimination reactions, the driving forces appear to be the loss of arene byproduct and formation of a strong donor-acceptor bond.
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 | 0.001 |
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".