Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brice Bosnich, an Australian inorganic chemist, graduated from the University of Sydney and obtained his PhD at the Australian National University, Canberra. He then worked successively at University College London, the University of Toronto and the University of Chicago. He had an abiding interest in stereochemistry and its relationship with chemical reactivity, and in the chirality and optical activity of coordination and organometallic complexes, mainly those of the d-block elements. His early studies concerned the topological and conformational behaviour of classical coordination compounds, mainly of cobalt(III), and made extensive use of the technique of circular dichroism. He put this background to elegant use in perhaps his most distinctive work, namely, the design and synthesis of a C 2 -symmetric ditertiary phosphine, ( S , S )-chiraphos, the rhodium(I) complex [Rh{Ph 2 PCH(CH 3 )CH(CH 3 )PPh 2 }] + of which catalysed efficiently the homogeneous hydrogenation of prochiral enamides to amino acids in high optical purity. Bosnich traced the high enantioselectivity to the chiral array of P-phenyl substituents that is generated on coordination of ( S , S )-chiraphos. In principle, catalytic enantioselective synthesis represents a powerful and economic method of introducing chirality into the synthesis of biologically active molecules, which, since the thalidomide tragedy, are required to be marketed only in optically pure forms. Dissymmetric ligands similar to ( S , S )-chiraphos are now routinely employed in this type of synthesis. Bosnich developed several other enantioselective processes based on organo-transition metal chemistry. He also had several quasi-theoretical interests, including the possible use of circular dichroism to determine the absolute configuration of chiral metal complexes, and the development of a molecular mechanics force field for metallocenes. He maintained a strong interest in the properties of multimetallic proteins and devoted much effort to the construction of chiral binucleating ligands. During the 7–8 years before his retirement from the University of Chicago in 2006, he shifted his research to supramolecular recognition by suitably designed metal complexes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.474 | 0.345 |
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".