Formation of Gold(III) Alkyls from Gold Alkoxide Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The gold(III) methoxide complex (C ∧ N ∧ C)AuOMe ( 1 ) reacts with tris( p -tolyl)phosphine in benzene at room temperature under O abstraction to give the methylgold product (C ∧ N ∧ C)AuMe ( 2 ) together with O═P( p -tol) 3 ((C ∧ N ∧ C) = [2,6-(C 6 H 3 t Bu-4) 2 pyridine] 2– ). Calculations show that this reaction is energetically favorable (Δ G = −32.3 kcal mol –1 ). The side products in this reaction, the Au(II) complex [Au(C ∧ N ∧ C)] 2 ( 3 ) and the phosphorane ( p -tol) 3 P(OMe) 2, suggest that at least two reaction pathways may operate, including one involving (C ∧ N ∧ C)Au • radicals. Attempts to model the reaction by DFT methods showed that PPh 3 can approach 1 to give a near-linear Au–O–P arrangement, without phosphine coordination to gold. The analogous reaction of (C ∧ N ∧ C)AuOEt, on the other hand, gives exclusively a mixture of 3 and ( p -tol) 3 P(OEt) 2 . Whereas the reaction of (C ∧ N ∧ C)AuOR (R = Bu t, p -C 6 H 4 F) with P( p -tol) 3 proceeds over a period of hours, compounds with R = CH 2 CF 3, CH(CF 3 ) 2 react almost instantaneously, to give 3 and O═P( p -tol) 3 . In chlorinated solvents, treatment of the alkoxides (C ∧ N ∧ C)AuOR with phosphines generates [(C ∧ N ∧ C)Au(PR 3 )]Cl, via Cl abstraction from the solvent. Attempts to extend the synthesis of gold(III) alkoxides to allyl alcohols were unsuccessful; the reaction of (C ∧ N ∧ C)AuOH with an excess of CH 2 ═CHCH 2 OH in toluene led instead to allyl alcohol isomerization to give a mixture of gold alkyls, (C ∧ N ∧ C)AuR′ (R′ = −CH 2 CH 2 CHO ( 10 ), −CH 2 CH(CH 2 OH)OCH 2 CH═CH 2 ( 11 )), while 2-methallyl alcohol affords R′ = CH 2 CH(Me)CHO ( 12 ). The crystal structure of 11 was determined. The formation of Au–C instead of the expected Au–O products is in line with the trend in metal–ligand bond dissociation energies for Au(III): M–H > M–C > M–O.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".