MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013028606 · doi:10.1021/om0000461

Angular Arenediethynyl Complexes of Gold(I)

2000· article· en· W2013028606 on OpenAlexaff
Maryanne Macdonald, Richard J. Puddephatt, Glenn P. A. Yap

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganometallics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCatalytic Alkyne Reactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryIsocyanidePhosphineAlkyneMoleculeRibbonStereochemistryCrystallographyRing (chemistry)Medicinal chemistryMetallacycleX-ray crystallographyOrganic chemistryDiffraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alkynylgold(I) complexes have been prepared from the angular bis(alkyne) MeC 6 H 3 -3,5-(CCH) 2, in which the alkyne units are rigidly fixed at an angle of 120° to each other. Reaction with [AuCl(SMe 2 )] and base yields the shock-sensitive, insoluble compound [{MeC 6 H 3 -3,5-(CCAu) 2 } n ] ( 2 ), which reacts with isocyanide, phosphine, or phosphite ligands (L) to give [MeC 6 H 3 -3,5-(CCAuL) 2 ] ( 3; L = P(OPh) 3, P(OMe) 3, PPh 3, PMePh 2, t -BuNC, MeNC). The complexes with L = P(OMe) 3, PMePh 2 exist in the solid state as infinite one-dimensional ribbon structures in which neighboring molecules are associated through secondary gold−gold bonding. Complexes with diisocyanide ligands 1,4-C 6 R 4 (NC) 2 (R = H, Me) have the formula [{MeC 6 H 3 -3,5-(CCAu) 2 (μ-LL)} n ] and are insoluble in organic solvents; they are suggested to have a zigzag polymeric structure. In contrast, complexes with diphosphine ligands (CH 2 ) n (PPh 2 ) 2 ( n = 1−6) are soluble and are suggested to be the cyclic tetragold(I) complexes of formula [{MeC 6 H 3 -3,5-(CCAu) 2 (μ-LL)} 2 ]; the ring size varies from 24 to 34, depending on n .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganometallicsSame topicCatalytic Alkyne ReactionsFrench-language works237,207