Heterogeneous or Homogeneous Catalysis? Mechanistic Studies of the Rhodium-Catalyzed Dehydrocoupling of Amine-Borane and Phosphine-Borane Adducts
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".