Synthesis and chemistry of bis(triisopropylphosphine) nickel(<scp>i</scp>) and nickel(0) precursors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High yield syntheses of ((i)Pr(3)P)(2)NiX (3a-c), (where X = Cl, Br, I) were established by comproportionation of ((i)Pr(3)P)(2)NiX(2) (1a-c) with ((i)Pr(3)P)(2)Ni(η(2)-C(2)H(4)) (2). Reaction of 1a with either NaH or LiHBEt(3) provided ((i)Pr(3)P)(2)NiHCl (4), along with 3a as a side-product. Reduction of ((i)Pr(3)P)(2)NiCl (3a-c) with Mg in presence of nitrogen saturated THF solutions provided the dinitrogen complex [((i)Pr(3)P)(2)Ni](2)(μ-η(1):η(1)-N(2)) (5). In aromatic solvents such as benzene and toluene a thermal equilibrium exists between 5 and the previously reported monophosphine solvent adducts ((i)Pr(3)P)Ni(η(6)-arene) (6a,b). Reaction of 5 with carbon dioxide provided ((i)Pr(3)P)(2)Ni(η(2)-CO(2)) (7). Thermolysis of 9 at 60 °C provided a mixture of products that included the reduction product ((i)Pr(3)P)(2)Ni(CO)(2) (8) along with (i)Pr(3)P=O, as identified by NMR spectroscopy. Complex 8 was also prepared in high yield from the reaction of 5 with CO. Reaction of 5 with CS(2) gave the dimeric carbon disulfide complex [((i)Pr(3)P)Ni(μ-η(1):η(2)-CS(2))](2) (9). Diphenylphosphine reacts with 5 to form the dinuclear Ni(I) complex [((i)Pr(3)P)Ni(μ(2)-PPh(2))](2) (10). Complex 5 reacts with PhSH to form ((i)Pr(3)P)(2)Ni(SPh)(H) (11), which slowly loses H(2) and (i)Pr(3)P to form the dimeric Ni(I) complex [((i)Pr(3)P)Ni(μ(2)-SPh)](2) (12) at room temperature. Complex 12 was also accessed by salt metathesis from the reaction of ((i)Pr(3)P)(2)NiCl (3a) with PhSLi, which demonstrates the utility of 3a as a Ni(I) precursor. With the exception of 6a,b, all compounds were structurally characterized by single-crystal X-ray crystallography.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".