Thermal Chemistry of Cp*W(NO)(CH<sub>2</sub>CMe<sub>3</sub>)(H)(L) Complexes (L = Lewis Base)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complexes trans -Cp*W(NO)(CH 2 CMe 3 )(H)(L) (Cp* = η 5 -C 5 Me 5 ) result from the treatment of Cp*W(NO)(CH 2 CMe 3 ) 2 in n -pentane with H 2 (∼1 atm) in the presence of a Lewis base, L. The designation of a particular geometrical isomer as cis or trans indicates the relative positions of the alkyl and hydrido ligands in the base of a four-legged piano-stool molecular structure. The thermal behavior of these complexes is markedly dependent on the nature of L. Some of them can be isolated at ambient temperatures [e.g., L = P(OMe) 3, P(OPh) 3, or P(OCH 2 ) 3 CMe]. Others undergo reductive elimination of CMe 4 via trans to cis isomerization to generate the 16e reactive intermediates Cp*W(NO)(L). These intermediates can intramolecularly activate a C–H bond of L to form 18e cis complexes that may convert to the thermodynamically more stable trans isomers [e.g., Cp*W(NO)(PPh 3 ) initially forms cis -Cp*W(NO)(H)(κ 2 -PPh 2 C 6 H 4 ) that upon being warmed in n -pentane at 80 °C isomerizes to trans -Cp*W(NO)(H)(κ 2 -PPh 2 C 6 H 4 )]. Alternatively, the Cp*W(NO)(L) intermediates can effect the intermolecular activation of a substrate R-H to form trans -Cp*W(NO)(R)(H)(L) complexes [e.g., L = P(OMe) 3 or P(OCH 2 ) 3 CMe; R-H = C 6 H 6 or Me 4 Si] probably via their cis isomers. These latter activations are also accompanied by the formation of some Cp*W(NO)(L) 2 disproportionation products. An added complication in the L = P(OMe) 3 system is that thermolysis of trans -Cp*W(NO)(CH 2 CMe 3 )(H)(P(OMe) 3 ) results in it undergoing an Arbuzov-like rearrangement and being converted mainly into [Cp*W(NO)(Me)(PO(OMe) 2 )] 2, which exists as a mixture of two isomers. All new complexes have been characterized by conventional and spectroscopic methods, and the solid-state molecular structures of most of them have been established by single-crystal X-ray crystallographic analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".