Analysis of the Critical Step in Catalytic Carbodiimide Transformation: Proton Transfer from Amines, Phosphines, and Alkynes to Guanidinates, Phosphaguanidinates, and Propiolamidinates with Li and Al Catalysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While lithium amides supported by tetramethylethylenediamine (TMEDA) are efficient catalysts in the synthesis of substituted guanidines via the guanylation of an amine with carbodiimide, as well as the guanylation of phosphines and conversion of alkynes into propiolamidines, aluminum amides are only efficient catalysts for the guanylation of amides. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations were used to explain this difference in activity. The origin of this behavior is apparent in the critical step where a proton is transferred from the substrate to a metal guanidinate. The activation energies of these steps are modest for amines, phosphines, and alkynes when a lithium catalyst was used, but are prohibitively high for the analogous reactions with phosphines and alkynes for aluminum amide catalysts. Energy decomposition analysis (EDA) indicates that these high activations energies are due to the high energetic cost of the detachment of a chelating guanidinate nitrogen from the aluminum in the proton transfer transition state. Amines are able to adopt an ideal geometry for facile proton transfer to the aluminum guanidinate and concomitant Al-N bond formation, while phosphines and alkynes are not.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".