Synthesis and molecular structures of monooxo aryl complexes of osmium(VI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reaction of [OsO 4 ] with C 7 H 7 MgBr (C 7 H 7 = 2-methylphenyl) followed by column chromatography afforded the reported osmium tetraaryl [Os(C 7 H 7 ) 4 ] along with the oxo-osmium(VI) ([OsO(C 7 H 7 ) 4 ]) (1) (13%) and the dioxo-osmium(VI) ([OsO 2 (C 7 H 7 ) 2 ]) (2) (25%) complexes. Treatment of [OsO 4 ] with C 8 H 9 MgBr (C 8 H 9 = 2,5-dimethylphenyl) gave a mixture of [Os(C 8 H 9 ) 4 ] (3) (34%) and [OsO(C 8 H 9 ) 4 ] (4) (4%) while that with C 8 H 9 OMgBr (C 8 H 9 O = 4-methoxy-2-methylphenyl) afforded [OsO(C 8 H 9 O) 4 ] (5) in 20% yield. Oxidation of 3 with 3-chloroperoxybenzoic acid afforded 4 in good yield. The solid-state structures of 1 and 4 have been established by X-ray crystallography. Crystals of 1 are tetragonal with a = 13.080(1) and c = 6.6506(5) Å, V = 1137.9(1) Å 3 , Z = 2, and space group of P4/n; while those of 4 are tetragonal with a = 13.593(2) and c = 7.377(2) Å, V = 1363.0(5) Å 3 , Z = 4, and space group of P4/n. The geometry around osmium in both complexes is square pyramidal with the oxo ligand occupying apical position. The OsO and OsC distances in 1 are 1.652(2) and 2.084(1) Å, respectively, while those in 4 are 1.688(7) and 2.088(4) Å, respectively. The cyclic voltammograms of the monooxo aryl osmium(VI) compounds show reversible Os(VI/V) couple at around 1.4 V vs. ferrocene/ferrocenium couple.Key words: osmium(VI), oxo aryl complexes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".