Synthesis, Structures, and Properties of the Phosphonium-1-indenylide (PHIN) Ligands 1-C<sub>9</sub>H<sub>6</sub>PPh<sub>3</sub>, 1-C<sub>9</sub>H<sub>6</sub>PMePh<sub>2</sub>, and 1-C<sub>9</sub>H<sub>6</sub>PMe<sub>2</sub>Ph and of the Corresponding Ruthenium(II) Complexes [Ru(η<sup>5</sup>-C<sub>5</sub>H<sub>5</sub>)(η<sup>5</sup>-PHIN)]PF<sub>6</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Syntheses of the phosphonium-1-indenylide (PHIN) ligands triphenylphosphonium-1-indenylide (1-C 9 H 6 PPh 3, I ), methyldiphenylphosphonium-1-indenylide (1-C 9 H 6 PMePh 2, II ), and dimethylphenylphosphonium-1-indenylide (1-C 9 H 6 PMe 2 Ph, III ) are reported, as are syntheses of the corresponding planar chiral ruthenium(II) complexes [Ru(η 5 -C 5 H 5 )(η 5 -1-C 9 H 6 PPh 3 )]PF 6 ( IV ), [Ru(η 5 -C 5 H 5 )(η 5 -1-C 9 H 6 PMePh 2 )]PF 6 ( V ), and [Ru(η 5 -C 5 H 5 )(η 5 -1-C 9 H 6 PMe 2 Ph)]PF 6 ( VI ). The ruthenium complexes have been characterized by 1 H, 13 C, and 31 P NMR spectroscopy, by X-ray crystallography, and by extensive DFT calculations, which produce optimized geometries consistent with the crystallographic data. The PHIN–Ru bond strengths are calculated to be ∼20 kcal/mol greater than the corresponding benzene–Ru bond strength of [Ru(η 5 -C 5 H 5 )(η 6 -C 6 H 6 )] + and are compatible with the observed configurational stability of the complexes. That interconversion of enantiomers via interfacial exchange of the η 5 -bound ligands does not occur is demonstrated by the observation of diastereotopic phenyl groups in the 1 H NMR spectrum of V and of diastereotopic methyl groups in the 1 H NMR spectrum of VI .
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 | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".