Synthesis, Structure and Reactivity of Organoindium 1,2‐Benzenedithiolates and 2‐Amidobenzenethiolates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Organoindium compounds of redox active 1,2‐benzenedithiolate and 2‐amidobenzenethiolate ligands were synthesized and tested for reactivity against mild oxidants. The reaction of Me3In and (NCN)InMe2 [NCN=2,6‐bis(dimethylaminomethy)phenyl] with 3,4‐toluenedithiol (H2tdt) at room temperature afforded [MeIn(tdt)(py)]2 (1) and (NCN)In(tdt) (2), respectively. A similar reaction of Me3In with 2‐aminobenzenethiol (H2abt) in toluene under reflux afforded [MeIn(abt)(py)]2 (3). The reaction of (NCN)InCl2 with one equivalent of Li2(abt) or two equivalents of Li(Habt) afforded the compounds [(NCN)In(abt)]⋅LiCl(thf)2 (4⋅LiCl(thf)2) and (NCN)In(Habt)2 (5), respectively. The X‐ray crystal structures of 1 and 3 are similar and show dimeric structures via μ‐S‐(tdt) and μ‐N‐(abt) ligands, respectively. Compounds 2 and 4 possess similar monomeric structures and tridentate NCN pincer ligands. DFT computational studies have been used to rationalize the observed solid‐state structures and discern the potential reactivity of compounds 1–4 against oxidants. The reaction of 1 and 2 with excess iodine resulted in loss of the 3,4‐toluenedithiolate ligand and the formation of the oligomeric disulfide [tdt]n, while 3 and 4 showed no reactivity under similar conditions. This contrasts the reactivity of previously reported organoindium o‐amidophenolate complexes which undergo oxidative addition of iodine to afford ligand‐centered radical species.
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 | 0.000 |
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 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".