MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038253863 · doi:10.1139/v09-077

Computational design of ruthenium hydride olefin-hydrogenation catalysts containing hemilabile ligands<sup>,</sup>

2009· article· en· W2038253863 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Christopher N. Rowley, Tom K. Woo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAsymmetric Hydrogenation and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsChemistryRutheniumOxazolineDenticityOlefin fiberCatalysisEthyleneHydrideLigand (biochemistry)Density functional theoryMedicinal chemistryPhotochemistryMetalComputational chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three ruthenium hydridocarbonyl complexes containing bidentate hemilabile ligands have been evaluated as possible catalysts for the H2 hydrogenation of olefins. Our previous investigations of the mainstay hydridoruthenium catalyst, RuHCl(CO)(PR3)2 (1), indicated that the rate-limiting olefin-insertion barrier was increased by the need for an H2 molecule to act as a stabilizing two-electron donor. Using density functional theory (DFT) calculations, we have determined that a P,N phosphane-oxazoline would be suitable for stabilizing the metal center of the complex RuHCl(CO)(PiPr3)(DZ), where DZ is a neutral bidentate hemilable ligand. In the reaction catalyzed by this complex, the olefin insertion occurs before the coordination of H2, avoiding the entropic penalty of coordinating H2. We predict that the phosphane-oxazoline containing catalyst will have higher activity than 1 and a different rate-law, zero-order in [H2]. The oxazoline increases the strength of coordination of the ethylene due to stronger back-donation from destabilized Ru d-orbitals to the ethylene π* molecular orbital.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicAsymmetric Hydrogenation and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207