Probing the Role of Secondary versus Tertiary Amine Donor Ligands for Indium Catalysts in Lactide Polymerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of the central amine donor in a previously reported dinuclear indium catalyst, [N(Me2)N(H)O)InCl]2(μ-Cl)(μ-OEt) (1), for the polymerization of lactide was investigated through experimental methods. The solid state structural data of a series of dimeric complexes related to 1, including the previously reported bromide derivative [(N(Me2)N(H)O)InBr](μ-Br)(μ-OEt) (2) and the newly synthesized methylated derivative [(N(Me2)N(Me)O)InCl]2(μ-Cl)(μ-OEt) (6), showed that weak hydrogen bonding may be present within some of these complexes in the solid state. The polymerization of rac-lactide with 2, 6, and a related achiral complex [(L(H))InCl]2(μ-Cl)(μ-OEt) (8) synthesized for this study indicates that hydrogen bonding may not influence the reactivity of these compounds. The nature of the central amine donor may play a role in tuning the reactivity of these types of catalysts. Catalysts with central secondary amine donors, such as complexes 1, 2, and 8, are 2 orders of magnitude more reactive than those with central tertiary amine donors, such as complex 6.
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".