Heterogeneous or Homogeneous Catalysis? Mechanistic Studies of the Rhodium-Catalyzed Dehydrocoupling of Amine-Borane and Phosphine-Borane Adducts
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
In depth, comparative studies on the catalytic dehydrocoupling of the amine-borane adduct Me(2)NH.BH(3) (to form [Me(2)N-BH(2)](2)) and the phosphine-borane adduct Ph(2)PH.BH(3) (to form Ph(2)PH-BH(2)-PPh(2)-BH(3)) with a variety of Rh (pre)catalysts such as [[Rh(1,5-cod)(micro-Cl)](2)], Rh/Al(2)O(3), Rh(colloid)/[Oct(4)N]Cl, and [Rh(1,5-cod)(2)]OTf have been performed in order to determine whether the dehydrocoupling proceeds by a homogeneous or heterogeneous mechanism. The results obtained suggest that the catalytic dehydrocoupling of Me(2)NH.BH(3) is heterogeneous in nature involving Rh(0) colloids, while that of Ph(2)PH.BH(3) proceeds by a homogeneous mechanism even when starting with Rh(0) precursors such as Rh/Al(2)O(3). The catalytic dehydrocoupling reactions are thought to proceed by different mechanisms due to a combination of factors such as (i) the greater reducing strength of amine-borane adducts, (ii) the increased ease of dissociation of phosphine-borane adducts, and (iii) phosphine ligation and/or poisoning of active catalytic sites on metal colloids.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it