M–H–BR<sub>3</sub> and M–Br–BR<sub>3</sub> interactions in rhodium and nickel complexes of an ambiphilic phosphine–thioether–borane ligand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reaction of [Rh(μ-Cl)(CO)(TXPB)] (1; TXPB = 2,7-di-tert-butyl-5-diphenylboryl-4-diphenylphosphino-9,9-dimethylthioxanthene) with NaBH4 yielded square planar [Rh(μ-H)(CO)(TXPB)] (2) in which the hydride ligand bridges between rhodium and the borane unit of TXPB. The Rh–H, Rh–B, and Rh–Cipso distances are short at 1.84(5), 2.456(6), and 2.568(5) Å, respectively, whereas the B–H bond, 1.59(6) Å, falls at the longer end of the usual range. Compound 2 is compared with the previously reported series of rhodium TXPB complexes: [RhX(CO)(TXPB)] {X = F (3), Cl (1), Br (4), I (5)}. Compound 4 in this series features the only crystallographically characterized example of an M–Br–BR3 interaction, and to expand this area, [NiBr(μ-Br)(TXPB)] (6) was prepared via the reaction of [NiBr2(dme)2] (dme = 1,2-dimethoxyethane) with TXPB. An X-ray crystal structure of light purple 6 revealed a square-planar geometry with a strong B–Br interaction {B–Br = 2.311(6) Å; ∑(C–B–C) = 344.5(7)°}. An 11B NMR chemical shift of 23 ppm was observed for 6, indicating that an appreciable B–Br interaction is maintained in solution. No signals were observed in the 31P{1H} NMR spectrum at room temperature, whereas a broadened 31P signal was observed at −20 °C, evolving into a sharp singlet at −67 °C. This behaviour suggests that at room temperature, square planar 6 exists in equilibrium with a paramagnetic tetrahedral isomer, present at a level below that detectable through Evans magnetic measurements.
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".