H<sub>2</sub> Activation by a (PNP)Ir(C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>5</sub>) Complex via the Dearomatization/Aromatization Process of the PNP Ligand: A Computational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density functional theory calculations have been carried out to explore the mechanism of the H(2) activation by the (PNP)Ir(C(6)H(5)) complex. Our calculations show that the reaction is most likely to go though three steps. The first step (also the rate-determining step) involves the proton transfer from the benzylic position of the PNP ligand to the metal center to form an Ir(III) hydride intermediate, accompanied by the dearomatization of the PNP ligand. Second, H(2) is coordinated to the metal of this Ir(III) intermediate to form a molecular hydrogen complex. Finally, the H-H bond is heterolytically cleaved to produce the final trans-dihydride product, in which the benzylic carbon is protonated, and the PNP ligand is rearomatized. Thus, the H(2) activation by the Ir(I) complex actually involves an Ir(III) hydride complex as a key intermediate. The Ir center and the PNP ligand cooperate in a synergistic manner in the H(2) activation process. The above molecular mechanism could provide reasonable explanations for known experimental facts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".