Selectivity in carbon–carbon coupling reactions at palladium(IV) and platinum(IV)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The isomerization and reductive elimination reactions from octahedral organometallic complexes of palladium(IV) and platinum(IV) usually occur through five-coordinate intermediates that cannot be directly detected. This paper reports a computational study of five-coordinate complexes of formulae [PtMe3(bipy)]+, [PtMe2Ph(bipy)]+, and [PtMe(CH2CMe2C6H4)(bipy)]+ (M = Pd or Pt, bipy = 2,2′-bipyridine), particularly with respect to reactivity and selectivity in reductive elimination. All of the complexes are predicted to have square pyramidal structures with the bipy and two R groups in the equatorial positions and one R group in the axial position, and axial–equatorial exchange occurs by a pairwise mechanism, with the transition state having a pinched trigonal bipyramidal (PTBP) stereochemistry, with one nitrogen and two R groups in the trigonal plane. The activation energy for isomerization is lower than that for reductive elimination in all cases. For the complexes [MMe2Ph(bipy)]+, the activation energies for reductive elimination with Me–Me or Me–Ph coupling are similar. For the complexes [MMe(CH2CMe2C6H4)(bipy)]+, the reductive elimination with Me–C6H4 bond formation from the isomer with the methyl group in the axial position is predicted and is attributed to it having the best conformation of the Me and C6H4 groups for C–C bond formation. In all cases, the selectivity for reductive elimination is similar for M = Pd or Pt, but reactivity is higher for M = Pd. The relevance of this work to selectivity in catalysis is 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".