Probing steric influences on electrophilic phosphonium cations: a comparison of [(3,5-(CF<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub>C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>3</sub>)<sub>3</sub>PF]<sup>+</sup> and [(C<sub>6</sub>F<sub>5</sub>)<sub>3</sub>PF]<sup>+</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrophilic phosphonium cation (EPC) salt [(3,5-(CF3)2C6H3)3PF][B(C6F5)4] (2) is prepared via oxidation of the precursor phosphine with XeF2 and subsequent abstraction of fluoride with [Et3Si(tol)][B(C6F5)4]. The Lewis acidity of 2 is evaluated by experimental and computational methods and by preliminary catalysis testing. Exchange reactions of 2 and [(C6F5)3PF][B(C6F5)4] with their respective difluorophosphoranes are studied by 2D 19F-19F NOESY/EXSY and selective 1D 19F NMR exchange spectroscopy (SEXSY) experiments affording comparative rates of fluoride exchange. Collectively, although these data show that 2 is less Lewis acidic than [(C6F5)3PF][B(C6F5)4], the improved access to the P center of 2 provides a kinetic acceleration for fluoride exchange and catalysis where the transition states are more sterically demanding.
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".