MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009103276 · doi:10.1021/jacs.9b11871

Palladium-Catalyzed Homocoupling of Highly Fluorinated Arylboronates: Studies of the Influence of Strongly vs Weakly Coordinating Solvents on the Reductive Elimination Process

2020· article· en· W3009103276 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yudha P. Budiman, Arumugam Jayaraman, Alexandra Friedrich, Florian Kerner, Udo Radius, Todd B. Marder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicFluorine in Organic Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJulius-Maximilians-Universität WürzburgDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsChemistryPalladiumReductive eliminationCatalysisProcess (computing)Combinatorial chemistryOrganic chemistryComputational chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C–C reductive elimination from [PdL2(C6F5)2] to form polyfluorinated biaryls has been a challenge for over 50 years. Thus, palladium-catalyzed homocoupling of arylboronates (ArF–Bpin) containing two ortho-fluorine substituents is very difficult, as the reaction typically stops at the [PdL2(ArF)2] stage after two transmetalation steps. The transmetalated complexes cis-[Pd(MeCN)2(C6F5)2] (3a), cis-[Pd(MeCN)2(2,4,6-C6F3H2)2] (3b), and cis-[Pd(MeCN)2(2,6-C6F2H3)2] (3e) have been isolated from the reaction of ArF–Bpin with Pd(OAc)2 in acetonitrile solvent, with no homocoupling observed. However, catalytic homocoupling proceeds smoothly in a “weakly coordinating” arene solvent as long as no ancillary ligands or coordinating solvents are present. DFT computations reveal that the active catalyst formed by arene solvent coordination leads to an overall reduced barrier for the reductive elimination step compared to the formation of stable [PdL2(ArF)2] complexes in the presence of a donor ligand or solvent L.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicFluorine in Organic ChemistryFrench-language works237,207