MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981632620 · doi:10.1021/om000085c

Agostic Bonding in Pincer Complexes of Ruthenium

2000· article· en· W1981632620 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganometallics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganometallic Complex Synthesis and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAgostic interactionChemistryRutheniumCrystallographyAntibonding molecular orbitalHydridePincer movementIodideStereochemistryInorganic chemistryHydrogenMetalElectronOrganic chemistryAtomic orbitalCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-yield preparations have been developed for 16-e square-pyramidal complexes of ruthenium(II) RuCl(CO)[2,6-(CH 2 PBu t 2 ) 2 C 6 H 3 ] ( 1 ), RuHCl[1,3-(CH 2 PBu t 2 ) 2 C 6 H 4 ] ( 2 ), and RuHI[1,3-(CH 2 PBu t 2 ) 2 C 6 H 4 ] ( 3 ). NMR and X-ray studies have revealed strong η 2 CH bonding in the Ru[1,3-(CH 2 PBu t 2 ) 2 C 6 H 4 ] fragment of 2 and 3 . These complexes show stretched agostic C−H bonds, elongated ipso-C−Ru distances, reduced 1 J CH couplings, and large IPR shifts in 1 H NMR. A consistent picture has emerged of a stronger agostic bonding and greater C−H bond activation in the η 2 C−H trans to chloride in 2 . This finding is attributed to stronger π-donor properties of chloride compared to iodide and increased back-donation into the antibonding orbital of the η 2 C−H. Analysis of the X-ray and NMR T 1 data has also indicated the presence of an attractive interaction, dihydrogen bonding, between the agostic C−H hydrogen and neighboring hydride in 2 and 3 .

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2880.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it