Boron Lewis Pair Mediated C–H Activation and Borylation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the few past years, the chemistry of frustrated Lewis pairs (FLP) has enabled a plethora of transformations that would otherwise only be possible using transition metal catalysts. Of particular interest are C–H bond activation and borylation reactions, which are the subject of this review. The FLP borylation chemistry is compared with the early borylation methodologies using strongly electrophilic borenium ions. We present the mechanism of the C–H borylation using inter- and intramolecular Lewis pairs, along with some applications of these transformations. 1 Introduction 2 Electrophilic Borylation 3 Intramolecular or Directed Electrophilic Borylation 4 Intermolecular FLP-Mediated C–H Borylation 5 Stoichiometric Borylation by Intramolecular FLPs 5.1 Csp–H Borylation 5.2 Csp2–H Borylation 5.3 Csp3–H Borylation 6 Catalytic Borylation by Intramolecular FLPs 7 Catalytic Borylation by Self-Assembled FLPs 8 Conclusion
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".