Activation of Dioxygen by Dimethylplatinum(II) Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ligands RN(CH 2 -2-C 5 H 4 N) 2 ( L1, R = CH 2 CH 2 OH; L2, R = CH 2 CH 2 CH 2 OH; L3, R = 2-C 6 H 4 OH) have been designed to give dimethylplatinum(II) complexes that can activate dioxygen in the absence of a protic solvent. The ligands react with [Pt 2 Me 4 (SMe 2 ) 2 ] to give an equilibrium mixture, with the major constituent being [PtMe 2 (κ 2 -N,N′- L )] ( 1a, L = L1; 1b, L = L2; 1c, L = L3 ). In the absence of air, 1a reacts with solvent CH 2 Cl 2 to give [PtMe 2 (CH 2 Cl)(κ 3 - N, N ′, N ″- L1 ]Cl, while 1c decomposes with loss of methane to give [PtMe(κ 3 - N, N ′, N ″- L3 -H)] and then, by reaction with solvent, the binuclear complex [{PtMe(κ 3 - N, N ′, N ″- L3 -H)} 2 (μ-H)]Cl. In the presence of oxygen the complexes 1 in CH 2 Cl 2 solution react to give [Pt(OH)Me 2 (κ 3 - N, N ′, N ″- L )]Cl, when L = L1 or L2, or [Pt(OH)Me 2 (κ 3 - N, N ′, O - L -H)], when L = L3 . The complex [Pt(OH)Me 2 (κ 3 - N, N ′, N ″- L2 )]Cl decomposed in the presence of air to give the binuclear complex [{PtMe 2 (2-C 5 H 4 NCO 2 )(μ-OH)} 2 ]. The factors influencing reactivity and mechanism in these reactions are elucidated, and the presence of both a free pyridyl donor (push group) and a free hydroxyl (pull group) is suggested to give a synergy for dioxygen activation by dimethylplatinum(II) complexes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".