Iridium Diphosphine Complexes Featuring Pendant Lewis Acids: Efforts toward Selective Heteroarene Borylation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The selective forging of carbon‐boron bonds via C−H borylation stands as a central means to access fine chemical precursors. Notwithstanding, achieving selectivity in this reaction is difficult, calling for the design of molecular catalysts that offer a vector for mechanistic control. This report aims to achieve such through the strategic placement of Lewis acids in the ligand periphery, permitting engagement with a substrate through non‐covalent Lewis acid/base interactions. Various diphosphine iridium(I/III) complexes having 1,2‐ bis ( di ‐ n ‐propylphosphino)ethane) (d n ppe), tetrakisallylphosphinoethane (tape) and 1,2‐ bis (di(3‐dicyclohexylboranyl)propylphosphino)ethane (P 2 B Cy 4 ) ligands were prepared. The P 2 B Cy 4 ligand scaffold boasts four Lewis acidic boron groups in its secondary coordination sphere, which are shown to engage with N‐heterocycles, tape is the precursor to P 2 B Cy 4 , and d n ppe is a saturated n ‐propyl analogue devoid of boron functionality. Select combinations of such iridium salts/diphosphine ligands were assayed in the catalytic borylation of 2‐methylpyridine using B 2 Pin 2 (Pin=pinacol).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".