MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025357335 · doi:10.1021/ja048952i

Isolation and Characterization of a Monomeric Cationic Titanium Hydride

2004· article· en· W2025357335 on OpenAlexaff
Kuangbiao Ma, Warren E. Piers, Yuan Gao, Masood Parvez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganometallic Complex Synthesis and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCationic polymerizationIsolation (microbiology)MonomerCharacterization (materials science)TitaniumHydridePolymer chemistryOrganic chemistryNanotechnologyPolymerMicrobiologyHydrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methyl cations 1-Cp and 1-Cp*, stabilized by the tri-tert-butylphophinimine ligand and either C5H5 or C5Me5, were generated from the neutral dimethyl precursors and [Ph3C]+[B(C6F5)4]-. Reaction of these compounds with H2 resulted in contrasting reactions. For 1-Cp, hydrogenolysis of the Ti-CH3 group led to rapid reduction to Ti(III) and production of a cationic Ti(III) dimer, 2, presumably formed upon loss of H2 from a transiently generated Ti(IV) hydride. Compound 2 was characterized crystallographically and via its cleavage with donor solvents such as THF to form the monomeric [Cp(L)Ti(THF)2]+[B(C6F5)4]-, 3. In contrast, 1-Cp* reacted rapidly with H2 to form a cationic Ti(IV) hydride species, 4, which was resistant to reduction. While only moderately stable in solution under H2, a stable, isolable THF adduct preciptitated upon addition of THF, giving 4.THF, which was fully characterized, including via X-ray crystallography. Naked hydride 4 was very reactive toward haloarene solvents such as bromobenzene, giving the cationic bromide [Cp*(L)TiBr]+[B(C6F5)4]-, 5, which was fully characterized as its THF adduct 5.THF. The contrasting behavior of 1-Cp and 1-Cp* is a result of the greater steric protection and electron donation provided by the Cp* ligand relative to the Cp donor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicOrganometallic Complex Synthesis and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207