MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321987880 · doi:10.1021/cs300619q

Ester Hydrogenation Catalyzed by a Ruthenium(II) Complex Bearing an N-Heterocyclic Carbene Tethered with an “NH<sub>2</sub>” Group and a DFT Study of the Proposed Bifunctional Mechanism

2012· article· en· W2321987880 on OpenAlexafffund
Wylie W. N. O, Robert H. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Catalysis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAsymmetric Hydrogenation and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRutheniumChemistryBifunctionalCarbeneCatalysisHydrideMedicinal chemistryAmine gas treatingCatalytic cycleHomogeneous catalysisLigand (biochemistry)PhthalideTransfer hydrogenationPhotochemistryOrganic chemistryHydrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A ruthenium(II) catalyst containing an NHC–amine (NHC = N-heterocyclic carbene) ligand (C–NH 2 ) catalyzes the H 2 -hydrogenation of various esters and lactones at 50 °C and 25 bar of H 2 pressure, mild reaction conditions compared with other reported catalysts. A maximum turnover frequency of 1510 h –1 for the hydrogenation of phthalide with a conversion of 96% is achieved in 4 h. DFT calculations suggest a concerted, asynchronous bifunctional mechanism for homogeneous ester hydrogenation; a proton transfer step from the N–H group of a ruthenium hydride-amine complex to the carbonyl group has the largest energy barrier in the catalytic cycle. A surprising observation is that methyl pivalate ( t BuCOOCH 3 ) is hydrogenated much more rapidly than is tert -butyl acetate (CH 3 COO t Bu). This is explained by the energetics of the rate-determining step of the proposed Ru–H/N–H bifunctional mechanism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations102
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS CatalysisSame topicAsymmetric Hydrogenation and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207