Replacing sulfonate by carboxylate: application of pyridyliminocarboxylato copper(II) complexes in <i>rac</i>-lactide polymerization and Chan–Evans–Lam coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copper(II) complexes carrying pyridylmethyleneaminobenzoate or –propanoate ligands, LCuX, were prepared in one-pot reactions from pyridinecarboxaldehyde, aminobenzoic acid or β-alanine, and CuX 2 (X = Cl, NO 3 , OAc, or OTf). All complexes were characterized by single-crystal X-ray diffraction studies and formed either dimers, tetramers, or coordination polymers. Attempted preparation of the respective alkoxide complexes, LCu(OR), was unsuccessful, but use of LCuX/NaOMe mixtures in rac-lactide polymerization indicated under some conditions coordination–insertion polymerization via a copper alkoxide as the mechanism. The complexes performed poorly in rac-lactide polymerization, showing low activities (12 h to completion at 140 °C), low to moderate heterotacticity (P r = 0.6–0.8), and poor polymer molecular weight control (intramolecular transesterification). They were competent catalysts for Chan–Evans–Lam couplings with phenylboronic acid, without any indication of side reactions such as deboration or aryl homocoupling. The complexes were active in undried methanol, without addition of base, ligand, or molecular sieves. Aniline, n-octylamine, and cyclohexylamine were coupled quantitatively under identical reaction conditions. There is only little influence of the anion on activities (less than a factor of 2) but a strong influence on induction periods. The complexes were not active in CEL coupling with alcohols, phenols, or alkylboronic acids.
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) | 0.001 | 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".