Carbon−Carbon Bond Formation Using Yttrium(III) and the Lanthanide Elements
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The synthesis and characterization of a series of yttrium and lanthanide complexes that incorporate the macrocyclic bis(amidophosphine) ligand PhP(CH 2 SiMe 2 NSiMe 2 CH 2 ) 2 PPh, [P 2 N 2 ], are described. The starting materials, {[P 2 N 2 ]M} 2 (μ-Cl) 2, (M = Y, Sm, Ho, Yb, Lu), are prepared by the reaction of syn -Li 2 (dioxane)[P 2 N 2 ] with MCl 3 (THF) 3 in toluene. The reactivity of these complexes toward PhLi and other arylating agents is dependent on the size of the M 3+ ion. M = Y and Ho undergo C−C bond formation reactions to give biphenyldiide compounds {[P 2 N 2 ]M} 2 {μ-η 6:η 6 ‘ -(C 6 H 5 ) 2 } and {[P 2 N 2 ]Y} 2 {μ-η 6:η 6 ‘ -(C 6 H 4 - p- Ph) 2 }. These have been structurally characterized and show the biphenyl dianion bridging two [P 2 N 2 ]M fragments. These [P 2 N 2 ]M fragments migrate over the bridging ligand's π-surface on the NMR time scale. M = Yb yields the paramagnetic monophenyl derivative [P 2 N 2 ]Yb(C 6 H 5 ), where the Yb center is coordinatively unsaturated and resides in a distorted square-pyramidal environment. M = Lu results in a mixture of “ate” complexes of the formulation “[P 2 N 2 ]LuPh·LiCl”, as evidenced by 7 Li NMR. However, the biphenyl product {[P 2 N 2 ]Lu} 2 {μ-η 6:η 6 ‘ -(C 6 H 5 ) 2 } can be synthesized via a reductive route. The presence of THF was found to be deleterious to the coupling reaction; in this case, the THF adduct [P 2 N 2 ]Y(C 6 H 4 -p- Me)(THF) was isolated and structurally characterized. The mechanism for the C−C bond formation reaction is described based on the isolation of these yttrium and lanthanide complexes.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 it