Methylene-Bridged Complexes of Rhodium/Ruthenium as Models for Bimetallic Fischer−Tropsch Catalysts: Comparisons with the Rh/Os and Ir/Ru Analogues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cationic heterobinuclear complex [RhRu(CO) 3 (μ-H) 2 (dppm) 2 ][X] ( 1 ) is prepared by protonation of the monohydride species [RhRu(CO) 3 (μ-H)(dppm) 2 ] (dppm = μ-Ph 2 PCH 2 PPh 2; X - = BF 4 -, CF 3 SO 3 - ). Treatment of 1 with carbon monoxide affords the tetracarbonyl complex ion [RhRu(CO) 4 (dppm) 2 ][X] ( 2 ), which yields the methylene-bridged product [RhRu(CO) 4 (μ-CH) 2 (dppm) 2 ][X] ( 3 ), upon treatment with excess diazomethane at −78 °C. Reaction of 3 with trimethylamine- N -oxide results in CO removal, affording the methylene-bridged tricarbonyl species [RhRu(CO) 3 (μ-CH) 2 (dppm) 2 ][X] ( 4 ). Although compound 3 is unreactive toward further treatment with CH 2 N 2, compound 4 reacts readily with diazomethane, yielding a mixture of uncharacterized products. Compounds 3 and 4 react with PMe 3 to yield [RhRu(PMe 3 )(CO) 3 (μ-CH) 2 (dppm) 2 ][X] ( 5 ), in which coordination of PMe 3 at the unsaturated Rh center occurs. The structures of compounds 2, 3, and 5 have been determined by X-ray methods. Comparisons of the reactivity of compound 3 with that of the analogous Ir/Ru and Rh/Os complexes toward diazomethane are presented.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".