MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326349339 · doi:10.1021/ic301573c

Proton-Induced Disproportionation of a Ruthenium Noninnocent Ligand Complex Yielding a Strong Oxidant and a Strong Reductant

2012· article· en· W2326349339 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Kapovsky, Christopher J. Dares, Elaine S. Dodsworth, Rowshan Ara Begum, V. Raco, A. B. P. Lever

Bibliographic record

VenueInorganic Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetal complexes synthesis and properties
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsChemistryDisproportionationRutheniumElectron paramagnetic resonanceDensity functional theoryLigand (biochemistry)PhotochemistryRaman spectroscopyCatalysisIsodesmic reactionLone pairInorganic chemistryMoleculeComputational chemistryOrganic chemistryNuclear magnetic resonance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complex Ru(II)(NH(3))(2)(o-benzoquinonediimine)Cl(2) undergoes a reversible apparent acid/base reaction, although it has no obvious basic lone pairs. The reaction is a proton-assisted disproportionation yielding an oxidant ([Ru(III)(NH(3))(2)(o-benzoquinonediimine)Cl(2)](+)) and a reductant ([Ru(III)(NH(3))(2)(o-phenylenediamine)Cl(2)](+)). These species were characterized by electrochemistry, ultraviolet-visible light (UV-vis), vibrational (infrared (IR) and Raman), mass and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy, and X-ray structural analysis. The reaction is shown to be downhill from an isodesmic calculation. Three different isosbestic interconversions of the parent and product species are demonstrated. The electronic structures of these species were analyzed, and their optical spectra assigned, using density functional theory (DFT) and time-dependent DFT. This disproportionation of a noninnocent ligand complex may be relevant to the application of noninnocent ligands in organometallic catalysis and in the biological milieu.

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 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInorganic ChemistrySame topicMetal complexes synthesis and propertiesFrench-language works237,207