MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272959726 · doi:10.1021/acs.organomet.5b00866

α-Agostic Interactions and Growing Chain Orientation for Olefin Polymerization Catalysts

2015· article· en· W2272959726 on OpenAlexafffund
Giovanni Talarico, Peter H. M. Budzelaar

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganometallics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganometallic Complex Synthesis and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSaudi Basic Industries Corporation
KeywordsAgostic interactionMetalloceneChemistryPolymerizationPost-metallocene catalystOlefin polymerizationCrystallographyCatalysisOlefin fiberStereochemistryPolymer chemistryOrganic chemistryPolymerMetal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing chain orientational preference is one of the key factors determining the stereoselectivity of olefin polymerization and related reactions such as carboalumination; α-agostic interactions are an important component of this preference. Using insertion of ethene in the M–CH 3 bond as a model, the intrinsic orientational preference was evaluated for a number of important catalyst types through determination of the energy profile for methyl group rotation at the insertion TS. Ti and Zr metallocenes show a pronounced preference (Ti, 10 kcal/mol; Zr, ∼6 kcal/mol) for a classical α-agostic arrangement with a single short M···CH contact and an elongated C–H bond; on CH 3 rotation the agostic elongation mostly disappears. In contrast, for all non-metallocene systems studied the orientational preference is much smaller or even opposite that of metallocenes. Moreover, on CH 3 rotation the agostic C–H bond elongation gets spread out over two C–H bonds rather than disappearing. These results point to greater chain orientation flexibility for non-metallocene catalysts.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganometallicsSame topicOrganometallic Complex Synthesis and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207