Electronic and steric effects in fragmentation reactions of Os<sub>3</sub>(CO)<sub>9</sub>(μ-C<sub>4</sub>Ph<sub>4</sub>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
P-Donor nucleophiles of cone angle ≥145° are known to react with Os3(CO)9(μ-C4Ph4) quite differently from those with cone angles ≤143°. A detailed and systematic kinetic study of the rather slow kinetics of reactions with 11 of the larger nucleophiles is described, and the results are analysed according to standard QALE protocols. (QALE = quantitative analysis of ligand effects). The results are compared with those previously reported for 17 of the smaller phosphines, which react much more rapidly. The pronounced difference in behaviour between these two groups of nucleophiles is ascribable to major differences between the ease of formation of different intermediate Os3(CO)9L(μ-C4Ph4) adducts. The cluster is proposed to be capable of opening up to form a nido structure that has a small, well defined opening capable of accommodating any of the smaller nucleophiles quite easily. However, this opened nido structure is concluded to be extremely rigid and incapable of further opening to accommodate any of the larger nucleophiles. These have to take advantage of an alternative nido structure that contains a much larger opening but that requires considerably more energy for it to be formed. These results are compared with those for the clusters M5C(CO)15 (M = Ru or Fe), which show somewhat similar behaviour. This is ascribed to the complexity of the structures of the clusters that allows them to form alternative nido structures of the sort described, something that more symmetrical clusters are apparently incapable of doing.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".