MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336846870 · doi:10.1021/acs.organomet.6b00155

Ligand Attachment Chemistry in the Preparation of PC<sub>sp<sup>3</sup></sub>P and PC<sub>sp<sup>2</sup></sub>P Complexes of Rhodium

2016· article· en· W2336846870 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessamyn R. Logan, Warren E. Piers, Javier Borau‐Garcia, Denis M. Spasyuk

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganometallics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAsymmetric Hydrogenation and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsChemistryRhodiumLigand (biochemistry)IsopropylPincer ligandAlkylMedicinal chemistryStereochemistryMonomerPincer movementCatalysisOrganic chemistryPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The attachment of electron-rich PCP pincer ligands bis(2-(dialkylphosphino)phenyl)methane (alkyl = isopropyl, tert-butyl) to rhodium via reactions with [(COE)2Rh(μ-X)]2 (X = Cl, OSO2CF3) through C–H bond activations is reported. The first C–H activation to produce PCsp3P derivatives is facile and favors products wherein the remaining benzylic C–H and the Rh–H hydrogens are trans-disposed across the new Rh–C bond. For the less bulky isopropyl-substituted ligand, chlorido- or triflato-bridged dinuclear products are favored, while for the tert-butyl-adorned ligand, monomers are formed. The favoring of both trans C–H/Rh–H and dinuclear systems hampers the second C–H activation, necessary to form the (more desirable) PCcarbeneP derivatives. Through spectroscopic and structural investigations, the factors that influence the ligand attachment chemistry through successive C–H activations in these ligands are discussed.

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 score0.005

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations42
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganometallicsSame topicAsymmetric Hydrogenation and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207