MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055790868 · doi:10.1139/v05-022

Activation of chlorobenzene with Ni(0) <i>N</i>,<i>N</i>-chelates A remarkably profound effect of a minuscule change in ligand structure

2005· article· en· W2055790868 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
William Marshall, Vladimir V. Grushin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCatalytic Cross-Coupling Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryLigand (biochemistry)DenticityTetramethylethylenediamineOxidative additionChlorobenzeneChelationMedicinal chemistryCrystal structureStereochemistryNickelCrystallographyInorganic chemistryCatalysisOrganic chemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activation of the C—Cl bond of chlorbenzene with [(COD) 2 Ni] and a bidentate N,N-ligand such as N,N,N′,N′-tetramethylethylenediamine (tmeda) and 2,2′-bipyridyl (bipy) has been reported to produce σ-phenyl complexes [(tmeda)Ni(Ph)Cl] (1) and [(bipy)Ni(Ph)Cl], respectively. However, in sharp contrast, we found that similar reactions involving almost the identical ligands N,N,N′,N′-tetraethylethylenediamine (teeda) and 6,6′-dimethyl-2,2′-bipyridyl (6,6′-Me 2 bipy) resulted in homocoupling and the formation of non-organometallic dichlorocomplexes [(teeda)NiCl 2 ] and [(6,6′-Me 2 bipy)NiCl 2 ]. The latter two compounds and 1 were characterized by single-crystal X-ray diffraction data. The remarkable change in the reaction outcome points to its extremely high sensitivity to minor alterations in the structure of the stabilizing N,N-ligand. In contrast, analogous reactions of [Pd(dba) 2 ] with PhI in the presence of teeda or 1,2-dipiperidinoethane (dpe) produced the expected σ-phenyl complexes [(teeda)Pd(Ph)I] and [(dpe)Pd(Ph)I], much like the previously reported reaction with tmeda.Key words: C-Cl activation, zerovalent nickel complexes, N,N-ligands, oxidative addition, homocoupling, X-ray analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicCatalytic Cross-Coupling ReactionsFrench-language works237,207