“Push–push and push–pull” polystannanes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The synthesis and characterization of polystannanes with "push" or "pull" moieties attached to the tin backbone are described. Precursor tetra aryl- (1, 2) stannanes were converted to mono- (3) and dichloro- (4, 5) stannanes by either sequential chlorination or by redistribution reactions with SnCl4. Compounds 4 and 5 were transformed to polymerisable tin dihydride monomers 6 and 7 using a large excess (10×) of NaBH4. Homopolymer 8 with electron donating aryl substituents (p-MeOC6H4-) was synthesized by dehydrogenative polymerization using Wilkinson's catalyst. Attempts to prepare the homopolymer 9 with electron withdrawing aryl substituents (p-CF3C6H4-) from the dehydrocoupling of 7 using similar conditions led only to the formation of low molecular weight oligomeric species. Two alternating polymers, 10 and 11, were synthesized by condensation polymerization of (n-Bu)2Sn(NEt2)2 with monomers 6 or 7. The first was a "push-push" alternating polymer, 10, comprised of a repeating unit consisting of two different electron donating groups (p-MeOC6H4-, n-Bu) at neighboring tin centres. The second was a "push-pull" alternating polymer, 11, bearing both an electron donating group (n-Bu) and a strongly electron withdrawing substituent (p-CF3C6H4-) at neighboring tin atoms. All small molecule stannanes and tin-containing polymers were characterized by NMR (1H, 13C, 119Sn, and where required 19F) spectroscopy, MS or EA. The absolute molecular weights of tin polymers (8, 10, 11) were determined by triple detection GPC and in the range of 1.07 × 104 to 1.95 × 104 Da. Rapid photodegradation of polymers was observed by UV-Vis spectroscopy, with a slower degradation observed for the "push-pull" polymer, 11, compared to the "push-push" polymer, 10.
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) | 0.001 | 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".