Base‐Stabilized Phosphinidene Oxide, Imide and Sulfide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oxidation of a base‐stabilized phosphinidene (κ2‐NNP)P (12, NNP=phosphinoamidinate) with N2O afforded a labile phosphinidene oxide (κ2‐NNP)P=O (16) which was characterized by NMR spectroscopy. Further oxidation of 16 by N2O or reaction of 12 with two equivalents of pyridine oxide afforded the isolable dioxide (κ2‐NNP)PO2 which was characterized by NMR and SC XRD. Trapping of 16 with tolyl isocyanate resulted in P=O/N=C metathesis, eventually affording a urea‐ligated phosphine (κ1‐NNP)P(NTol)2C=O (17) The mechanism of this reaction was elucidated by DFT calculations. Reactions of phosphinidene 12 with azides generated transient imines (NNP)P=NR, which in the case of R=Tol underwent cycloaddition with tolyl Isocyanate to afford the urea product 17, and in the case of R=SiMe3 reacts with N3SiMe3 via the addition of N−Si across the P=N bond affording, after the extrusion of dinitrogen, a P,N‐heterocyclic compound. Both products of the reactions with azides have been fully characterized, both in solution and the solid‐state. Finally, reaction of phosphinidene 12 with one equivalent of sulfur resulted in the isolation of the base‐stabilized phosphinidene sulfide (κ2‐NNP)P=S that has also been fully characterized.
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".