Formation of Phosphorus−Nitrogen Bonds by Reduction of a Titanium Phosphine Complex under Molecular Nitrogen
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reduction of high oxidation state metal complexes in the presence of molecular nitrogen is one of the most common methods to synthesize a dinitrogen complex. However, the presence of strong reducing agents combined with the poor binding ability of N2 can lead to unanticipated outcomes. For example, the reduction of [NPN]ZrCl2(THF) (where NPN = PhP(CH2SiMe2NPh)2) with KC8 under N2 leads to the formation of the side-on bridged dinuclear dinitrogen complex ([NPN]Zr(THF))2(mu-eta2:eta2-N2) with an N-N bond distance of 1.503(3) A; however, reduction of the corresponding titanium precursor, [NPN]TiCl2, under N2 does not generate a dinitrogen complex, rather the bis(phosphinimide) derivative, ([N(PN)N]Ti)2, is isolated in which the added N2 is incorporated between the titanium and phosphine centers. Performing the reaction under 15N2 results in the 15N label being incorporated in the phosphinimide unit. A suggested mechanism for this process involves an initially formed dinitrogen complex being over reduced to generate a species with bridging nitrides that undergoes nucleophilic attack by the coordinated phosphine ligands and formation of the P=N bond of the phosphinimide.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it