A Reactive Ru–Binaphtholate Building Block with Self-Tuning Hapticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A versatile Ru-BINO building block is reported, which offers a straightforward entry point into the chemistry of atropisomeric binaphtholate complexes of ruthenium. Reaction of RuCl(2)(PPh(3))(3)6a with Tl(2)((S)-BINO) affords Ru((S)-BINO)(PPh(3))(2)7 as a mixture of isomers: in 7', the BINO ligand is bound via η(3)-CCO,η(1)-O' donors, and in symmetrical 7″, via η(3)-CCO,η(3)-O'C'C' interactions. The bis(enolate) BINO bonding mode in the latter, not previously observed for any metal, underscores the remarkable geometric and electronic flexibility of the binaphtholate moiety. The BINO ligand proves able to stabilize complexes containing as few as two, and as many as four, additional ligands in 7 and its derivatives, enabling a synthetic versatility that contrasts with that of the superficially similar o-catecholate complex Ru(o-cat)(PPh(3))(3). As with the important achiral Ru precursor 6a, complex 7 undergoes facile transformation into a range of products under mild conditions, including acetonitrile, pyridine, and vinylidene derivatives. Single-crystal X-ray structures are reported for three of these complexes: Ru(η(3),η(3)-(S)-BINO)(PPh(3))(2)7″, Ru(η(3),η(1)-(S)-BINO)(PPh(3))(2)(MeCN) 9, and Ru(η(3),η(1)-(S)-BINO)(PPh(3))(py)(2)11. (13)C{(1)H} NMR signatures are proposed for new and known BINO coordination modes (η(1)-O,η(1)-O'; η(1)-C1,η(1)-O'; η(3)-CCO,η(3)-O'C'C'; η(3)-CCO,η(1)-O'; η(6)-C(6),η(1)-O'), as a potential aid to further developments in late-metal BINO chemistry.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".