Counterintuitive Mechanisms of the Addition of Hydrogen and Simple Olefins to Heavy Group 13 Alkene Analogues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism of the reaction of olefins and hydrogen with dimetallenes ArMMAr (Ar = aromatic group; M = Al or Ga) was studied by density functional theory calculations and experimental methods. The digallenes, for which the most experimental data are available, are extensively dissociated to gallanediyl monomers, :GaAr, in hydrocarbon solution, but the calculations and experimental data showed also that they react with simple olefins, such as ethylene, as intact ArGaGaAr dimers via stepwise [2 + 2 + 2] cycloadditions due to their considerably lower activation barriers vis-à-vis the gallanediyl monomers, :GaAr. This pathway was preferred over the [2 + 2] cycloaddition of olefin to monomeric :GaAr to form a gallacyclopropane ring with subsequent dimerization to yield the 1,2-digallacyclobutane intermediate and, subsequently, the 1,4-digallacyclohexane product. The calculations showed also that the addition of H(2) to digallene proceeds by a different mechanism involving the initial addition of one equivalent of H(2) to form a 1,2-dihydride intermediate. This reacts with a second equivalent of H(2) to give two ArGaH(2) fragments which recombine to give the observed product with terminal and bridging H-atoms, Ar(H)Ga(μ-H)(2)Ga(H)Ar. The computations agree with the experimental observation that the :GaAr(iPr(8)) (Ar(iPr(8)) = C(6)H-2,6-(C(6)H(3)-2,4,6-(i)Pr(3))(2)-3,5-(i)Pr(2)), which does not associate even in the solid state, does not react with ethylene or hydrogen. Calculations on the reaction of propene with ArAlAlAr show that, in contrast to the digallenes, addition involves an open-shell transition state consistent with the higher singlet diradical character of dialuminenes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".