Diligating Tripodal Amido-Phosphine Ligands: the Effect of a Proximal Antipodal Early Transition Metal on Phosphine Donor Ability in a Building Block for Heterometallic Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ligand precursors P(CH2NH-3,5-(CF3)2C6H3)3 (1a), P(CH2NHPh)3 (1b), and P(CH2NH-3,5-Me2C6H3)3 (1c), react with the reagents Ti(NMe2)4 and tBuN=Ta(NEt2)3 to generate metal complexes of the type P(CH2NAr(R))3TiNMe2 (2a-c) and P(CH2NAr(R))3Ta=NtBu (3a-c) (where Ar(R) = 3,5-(CF3)2C6H3, Ph, and 3,5-Me2C6H3). Due to ring strain, the phosphine lone pair cannot chelate and is available to bind a second metal, and this feature can be utilized to synthesize heterometallic polynuclear complexes. The 31P chemical shifts observed upon complexation of the early transition metals to the amido donors are large and in the opposite direction expected for the increased C-P-C bond angles in these complexes; these unusual shifts are due to P-Ti and P-Ta distances that are significantly shorter than the sum of van der Waals radii. The reaction of 2c with Ni(CO)4 produces at first the bimetallic complex (CO)3Ni[P(CH2N-3,5-Me2C6H3)3TiNMe2] (4c), which gradually converts to the trimetallic complex (CO)2Ni[P(CH2N-3,5-Me2C6H3)3TiNMe2]2 (5c). The effect of the complexation of Ti and Ta fragments on the donor ability of the phosphine ligand was determined by the preparation of the bis-phosphine complexes trans-L(2)Rh(CO)Cl, (where L = 1a-c, 2a-c, and 3a-c) prepared by the reaction of the appropriate phosphine with [Rh(CO)2(mu-Cl)]2, and a measurement of the resultant CO stretching frequencies. Surprisingly, the complexes with the larger C-P-C angles are significantly poorer donors. Density functional theory calculations were performed to determine what factors affect the donor ability of the phosphine and if through-space interactions might play an important role in the observed electronic properties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".