MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986453631 · doi:10.1021/acscatal.9b03285

The Impact of Oxygen on Leading and Emerging Ru-Carbene Catalysts for Olefin Metathesis: An Unanticipated Correlation Between Robustness and Metathesis Activity

2019· article· en· W2986453631 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie J. Ton, Deryn E. Fogg

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Catalysis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthetic Organic Chemistry Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCarbeneCatalysisChemistryMetathesisReactivity (psychology)Medicinal chemistryOlefin metathesisPropeneOlefin fiberSalt metathesis reactionPhotochemistryCombinatorial chemistryOrganic chemistryPolymerization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of O2 on olefin metathesis promoted by Ru-NHC and Ru-CAAC catalysts is examined (NHC = N-heterocyclic carbene; CAAC = cyclic alkyl amino carbene). An atmosphere of 8% O2 in Ar is found to decrease turnover numbers by ca. 15–95% in ring-closing metathesis, including macrocyclization reactions. All H2IMes catalysts studied, irrespective of their ease of initiation, exhibit broadly similar O2-sensitivity, within the middle of this range. Much greater disparities in performance emerge for the CAAC catalysts, which exhibit an unexpected correlation between reactivity and robustness. Fast-initiating CAAC catalysts show greatest resistance to O2 of all systems studied. Mechanistic studies with the second-generation Grubbs catalyst RuCl2(H2IMes)(PCy3)(=CHPh), which contains the useful PCy3 and benzylidene reporter groups, suggest that [2 + 2] cycloaddition of O2 dominates over the reported attack of O2 at the benzylidene ligand. At catalyst concentrations compatible with NMR analysis (20 mM Ru), bimolecular coupling of Ru-4 is also a significant contributor to decomposition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS CatalysisSame topicSynthetic Organic Chemistry MethodsFrench-language works237,207