The influence of the axial group on the crystal structures of boron subphthalocyanines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crystal structures of 16 boron subphthalocyanines (BsubPcs) with structurally diverse axial groups were analyzed and compared to elucidate the impact of the axial group on the intermolecular π-π interactions, axial-group interactions, axial bond length and BsubPc bowl depth. π-π interactions between the isoindole units of adjacent BsubPc molecules most often involve concave-concave packing, whereas axial-group interactions with adjacent BsubPc molecules tend to favour the convex side of the BsubPc bowl. Furthermore, axial groups that contain O and/or F atoms tend to have significant hydrogen-bonding interactions, while axial groups containing arene site(s) can participate in π-π interactions with the BsubPc bowl, both of which can strongly influence the crystal packing. Bulky axial groups did tend to disrupt the π-π interactions and/or axial-group interactions, preventing some of the close packing that is seen in BsubPcs with less bulky axial groups. The atomic radius of the heteroatom bonded to boron directly influences the axial bond length, whereas the axial group has minimal impact on the BsubPc bowl depth. Finally, the crystal growth method did not generally appear to have a significant impact on the solid-state arrangement, with the exception of water occasionally being incorporated into crystal structures when hygroscopic solvents were used. These insights can help with the design and fine-tuning of the solid-state structures of BsubPcs as they continue to be developed as functional materials in organic electronics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".