Synthesis, resolution, and application of 2,2′-bis(diphenylphosphino)-3,3′-binaphtho[<i>b</i>]furan (BINAPFu)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(±)-2,2′-Bis(diphenylphosphino)-3,3′-binaphtho[2,1-b]furan (BINAPFu) was synthesized from 2-naphthoxyacetic acid in a five-step sequence in 62% overall yield. A variety of reported resolution procedures for biaryl bisphosphines did not work with (±)-BINAPFu; thus, a new resolution method was developed, involving the Staudinger reaction of the aforementioned racemate of BINAPFu with an enantiopure camphor sulfonyl azide derivative. The resulting diastereomeric phosphinimines were separated by flash chromatography. Subsequent hydrolysis to the corresponding bis-phosphine oxide and trichlorosilane reduction provided enantiopure BINAPFu. The absolute stereochemical configuration of BINAPFu was established by X-ray crystallography. BINAPFu was compared with commercially available 2,2′-bis(diphenylphosphino)-1,1′-binaphthalene (BINAP) in Pd(0)-catalyzed intermolecular Heck reactions. Investigation of the Heck arylation of 2,3-dihydrofuran showed BINAPFu to be more efficacious than BINAP in dioxane at 30 °C. A variety of phosphorus selenides were prepared, and the 1JP-Se coupling constants measured, to obtain a comparative scale of parent phosphine basicity. The phosphorus atoms in BINAPFu were found to be electron deficient when compared with BINAP but slightly more electron rich than trifurylphosphine. Key words: naphthofurans, atropisomers, electron-deficient phosphines, asymmetric Heck reactions, Staudinger reaction.
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 | 0.001 |
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".