Thermally Stable Chromium(III) <i>η</i><sup>3</sup>-Allyl Complexes. Direct Structural Comparison of Neutral Chromium(II) and Cationic Chromium(III) <i>η</i><sup>3</sup>-Allyl Redox Isomers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first thermally stable chromium(III) η 3 - allyl complexes have been prepared. Oxidation of neutral cyclopentadienylchromium(II) dicarbonyl η 3 - allyl, η 3 - crotyl, and η 3 - cyclohexenyl complexes 1 − 3, respectively, with NOPF 6, provides the corresponding cationic chromium(III) analogues 4 − 6 . The structure of the cationic complex 4 was confirmed in the solid state by X-ray crystallography and compared to the crystal structure of neutral Cr(II) complex 1, which bears an identical ligand set. The cationic chromium(III) allyl complexes are thermally stable, but disproportionate at high concentration in donor solvents or in the presence of donor ligands: substitution of the carbonyl ligands with concomitant retention of the η 3 - allyl moiety is unsuccessful under a range of reaction conditions. The reaction between cationic allyl complex 4 and the N-heterocyclic carbene, 1,3-bis(2,4,6,-trimethylphenyl)imidazole-2-ylidene (IMes), leads to the formation of IMesHPF 6 and intractable chromium-containing products, while the reaction between the neutral complex 1 and IMes results exclusively in nucleophilic alkylation of the allyl ligand. Treatment of complex 4 with tertiary phosphines provides low yields of diamagnetic bis(phosphine)chromium(II) 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".