Aromatic 1,2‐Azaborinin‐1‐yls as Electron‐Withdrawing Anionic Nitrogen Ligands for Main Group Elements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 2‐aryl‐3,4,5,6‐tetraphenyl‐1,2‐azaborinines 1‐EMe3 and 2‐EMe3 (E=Si, Sn; aryl=Ph (1), Mes (=2,4,6‐trimethylphenyl, 2)) were synthesized by ring‐expansion of borole precursors with N3EMe3‐derived nitrenes. Desilylative hydrolysis of 1‐ and 2‐SiMe3 yielded the corresponding N‐protonated azaborinines, which were deprotonated with nBuLi or MN(SiMe3)2 (M=Na, K) to the corresponding group 1 salts, 1‐M and 2‐M. While the lithium salts crystallized as monomeric Lewis base adducts, the potassium salts formed coordination polymers or oligomers via intramolecular K⋅⋅⋅aryl π interactions. The reaction of 1‐M or 2‐M with CO2 yielded N‐carboxylate salts, which were derivatized by salt metathesis to methyl and silyl esters. Salt metathesis of 1‐M or 2‐M with methyl triflate, [Cp*BeCl] (Cp*=C5Me5), BBr2Ar (Ar=Ph, Mes, 2‐thienyl), ECl3 (E=B, Al, Ga) and PX3 (X=Cl, Br) afforded the respective group 2, 13 and 15 1,2‐azaborinin‐2‐yl complexes. Salt metathesis of 1‐K with BBr3 resulted not only in N‐borylation but also Ph‐Br exchange between the endocyclic and exocyclic boron atoms. Solution 11B NMR data suggest that the 1,2‐azaborinin‐2‐yl ligand is similarly electron‐withdrawing to a bromide. In the solid state the endocyclic bond length alternation and the twisting of the C4BN ring increase with the sterics of the substituents at the boron and nitrogen atoms, respectively. Regression analyses revealed that the downfield shift of the endocyclic 11B NMR resonances is linearly correlated to both the degree of twisting of the C4BN ring and the tilt angle of the N‐substituent. Calculations indicate that the 1,2‐azaborinin‐1‐yl ligand has no sizeable π‐donor ability and that the aromaticity of the ring can be subtly tuned by the electronics of the N‐substituent.
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".