The Lewis Acidity of Bare and Crown Ether‐Complexed Germanium(II) and Tin(II) Cations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gutmann-Beckett and Fluoride Ion Affinity methods were used to assess the Lewis acidity of a variety of dicationic germanium(II) and tin(II) crown ether complexes and the corresponding neutral halides. The coordination of two or more equivalents of triethylphosphine oxide (TEPO) was observed which was accompanied by full or partial replacement of the crown ether or chloride ligands from the metal centre illustrating the importance of unambiguously identifying the species in solution to enable a meaningful discussion of relative Lewis acidities. From the coordination complexes observed, the germanium(II) centre was found, in general, to be more Lewis acidic than the tin(II) centre. The crown ether ligands, when retained, had little influence on the Lewis acidity of the complex and may, for ease of synthesis, be used as convenient precursors to "bare" Ge(II) and Sn(II) dicationic catalysts.
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".