Pyrazolyl-Bridged Iridium Dimers. 18.<sup>1</sup> Influence of Metal−Metal Bonding on the Geometry of Diiridium(II) Adducts and Hydrido-diiridium Complexes Formed from the Diiridium(I) Prototype [Ir(μ-pz)(PPh<sub>3</sub>)(CO)]<sub>2</sub> (pzH = Pyrazole) by Dihydrogen Addition or Protonation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Slow uptake of molecular dihydrogen by the diiridium(I) prototype [Ir(mu-pz)(PPh(3))(CO)](2) (1: pzH = pyrazole) is accompanied by formation of a 1,2-dihydrido-diiridium(II) adduct [IrH(mu-pz)(PPh(3))(CO)](2) (2), for which an X-ray crystal structure determination reveals that (unlike in 1) the PPh(3) ligands are axial, with the hydrides occupying trans coequatorial positions across the Ir-Ir bond (2.672 A). Reaction with CCl(4) effects hydride replacement in 2, affording the monohydride Ir(2)H(Cl)(mu-pz)(2)(PPh(3))(2)(CO)(2) (3) in which Ir-Ir = 2.683 A. At one metal center, H is equatorial and PPh(3) is axial, while at the other, Cl is axial as is found in the symmetrically substituted product [Ir(mu-pz)(PPh(3))(CO)Cl](2) (4) (Ir-Ir = 2.754 A) that is formed by action of CCl(4) on 1. Treatment of 1 with I(2) yields the diiodo analogue 5 of 4, which reacts with LiAlH(4) to afford the isomorph Ir(2)H(I)(mu-pz)(2)(PPh(3))(2)(CO)(2) (6) of 3 (Ir-Ir = 2.684 A). Protonation (using HBF(4)) of 1 results in formation of the binuclear cation Ir(2)H(mu-pz)(2)(PPh(3))(2)(CO)(2)(+) (7: BF(4)(-) salt), which shows definitive evidence (from NMR) for a terminally bound hydride in solution (CH(2)Cl(2) or THF), but 7 crystallizes as an axially symmetric unit in which Ir-Ir = 2.834 A. Reaction of 7 with water or wet methanol leads to isolation of the cationic diiridium(III) products [Ir(2)H(2)(mu-OX)(mu-pz)(2)(PPh(3))(2)(CO)(2)]BF(4) (8, X = H; 9, X = Me).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".