Selective Coupling of Methylene Groups at a Rh/Os Core, Yielding C<sub>2</sub>, C<sub>3</sub>, or C<sub>4</sub>Fragments: Roles of the Adjacent Metals in Carbon−Carbon Bond Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mixed-metal complex, [RhOs(CO)(4)(dppm)(2)][BF(4)] (1; dppm = micro-Ph(2)PCH(2)PPh(2)) reacts with diazomethane to yield a number of products resulting from methylene incorporation into the bimetallic core. At -80 degrees C the reaction between 1 and CH(2)N(2) yields the methylene-bridged [RhOs(CO)(3)(micro-CH(2))(micro-CO)(dppm)(2)][BF(4)] (2), which reacts further at ambient temperature to give the allyl methyl species, [RhOs(eta(1)-C(3)H(5))(CH(3))(CO)(3)(dppm)(2)][BF(4)] (4). At intermediate temperatures compounds 1 and 2 react with diazomethane to yield the butanediyl complex [RhOs(C(4)H(8))(CO)(3)(dppm)(2)][BF(4)] (3) by the incorporation and coupling of four methylene units. Compound 2 is proposed to be an intermediate in the formation of 3 and 4 from 1 and on the basis of labeling studies a mechanism has been proposed in which sequential insertions of diazomethane-generated methylene fragments into the Rh-C bond of bridging hydrocarbyl fragments occur. Reaction of the tricarbonyl species, [RhOs(CO)(3)(micro-CH(2))(dppm)(2)][BF(4)] with diazomethane over a range of temperatures generates the ethylene complex [RhOs(eta(2)-C(2)H(4))(CO)(3)(dppm)(2)][BF(4)] (7a), but no further incorporation of methylene groups is observed. This observation suggests that carbonyl loss in the formation of the above allyl and butanediyl species only occurs after incorporation of the third methylene fragment. Attempts to generate C(2)-bridged species by the reaction of 1 with ethylene gave no reaction, however, in the presence of trimethylamine oxide the ethylene adducts [RhOs(eta(2)-C(2)H(4))(CO)(3)(dppm)(2)][BF(4)] (7b; an isomer of 7a) and [RhOs(eta(2)-C(2)H(4))(2)(CO)(2)(dppm)(2)][BF(4)] (8) were obtained. The relationship of the above products to the selective coupling of methylene groups, and the roles of the different metals are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".