Role of Aggregation in the Synthesis and Polymerization Activity of SalBinap Indium Alkoxide Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reaction of racemic SalBinap ligand, (±)-H2(ONN*OMe), with InCl3 and excess NaOEt generated a mixture of two dinuclear compounds [(μ-κ(2)-ONN*OMe)In(μ-OEt)]2 (1a) and [κ(4)-ONN*OMe)In(μ-OEt)]2 (1b), which were isolated and fully characterized. Polymerization of racemic lactide with 1a and 1b was slow in refluxing THF and showed only modest stereoselectivity. Catalyst 1b displayed better control than 1a, with the experimental molecular weights of the resulting poly(lactic acid) in agreement with the expected values. The higher-than-expected molecular weights observed in polymers formed by 1a were due to partial initiation of the catalyst. The reaction of (±)-H2(ONN*OtBu) with InCl3 yielded (κ(4)-ONN*OtBu)InCl (2); however, further reactivity of the compound formed a mixture of products. An attempt to prevent aggregation by reacting (±)-H2(ONN*OMe) with InCl3 and excess NaO(i)Pr yielded an intractable mixture, including [(μ-κ(2)-ONN*OMe)In]2(μ-Cl)(μ-OH) (3). The thermal stabilities of compounds 1a and 1b under polymerization conditions were investigated. Examination of the polymerization behavior of complexes 1a and 1b and the reaction equilibrium between the two illustrates the importance of aggregation in indium salen complexes compared to their aluminum counterparts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".