“Dormant” secondary metal-alkyl complexes are not omnipresent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This theoretical study was inspired by the perpetual debate over the so-called "dormancy" of the active sites in propylene polymerization, i.e., a drop in their activity after a regioerror (2,1-insertion), which was reported to occur in many (although not all) catalytic systems. To explore the range of possible situations, we have selected two homogeneous systems of fundamentally different structure: an octahedral system of C2 symmetry with a tetradentate -O-N-N-O- ligand and a bridged indenyl catalyst. This choice was not accidental; it is in these two systems where the experimentalists cannot reach a consensus about dormancy. Our density-functional theory calculations explain why in certain catalytic systems both primary and secondary alkyl complexes can be equally reactive toward propylene polymerization, despite the intuitive concept of dormancy. To understand such a behavior, it was imperative to build an extensive model, including the counteranion and solvent effects. The discussion is also supplemented by our latest calculations on the classical second-generation Ziegler-Natta system.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".