Chiral phosphine ligand libraries based on the Bull–James three-component supramolecular assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An approach to the synthesis of libraries of chiral phosphine ligands is described, using condensations of 2-formylarylboronic acids, diols or related compounds, and aminophosphines. The three-component nature of this condensation, along with the ready availability of the building blocks, enables the rapid generation of diverse structures. From a library of iminoboronate-derived phosphines, three ligands that gave 90% ee or greater in a benchmark palladium-catalyzed allylic substitution reaction were identified. Significant variation of selectivity as a function of the structure of each component was observed. 11B NMR spectroscopy was used to evaluate the existence of B–N interactions in the free ligands as well as their Pd-derived complexes. A bidentate P,N-coordination mode was inferred for ligands that gave high enantioselectivity in the allylic substitution reaction.Abbreviation: BINOL: 1,1'-bi-2-naphthol; BSA: N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl)acetamide; DIOP: (2,3-O-isopropylidene-2,3-dihydroxy-1,4-bis(diphenylphosphino)butane; HPLC: high-performance liquid chromatography; NMR: nuclear magnetic resonance; THF: tetrahydrofuran
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".