Reactions of a pincer proligand with copper iodide: bridging instead of C–H metalation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various precursors of divalent copper have been treated with the meta-disubstituted phenylene-based proligand POC(H)OP (1,3-(i-Pr2PO)2C6H4) with the objective of preparing classical pincer complexes (POCOP)CuX. However, in no case was such species obtained, presumably owing to the difficult C–H metallation step. Analogous reactions of monovalent precursors were also unsuccessful, whereas reaction of POC(H)OP with CuI under different conditions gave the non-metallated adducts {(μ, κP, [Formula: see text]-POC(H)OP)Cu(μ-Ι)}2, 1, {(μ, κP, [Formula: see text]-POC(H)OP)Cu2(μ-Ι)2(DMAP)2}, 2 (DMAP = 4-dimethylaminopyridine), and {(μ, κP, [Formula: see text]-POC(H)OP)Cu2(μ3-Ι)2}2, 3. Treating 1 with DMAP gave the adduct 2, whereas 3 could be obtained by treating 1 with BuLi or by sublimation of 1. The solid state structures of these complexes revealed the tetrahedral geometry that might be anticipated for the d10 Cu(I) centers, in addition to fairly close I–H distances; on the other hand, no C–H interaction (agostic or otherwise) was observed with the Cu centers in any of these structures. The unsuccessful metallation of the C(2)–H moiety is thought to be a result of the strong preference of monovalent copper center to form bridging interactions with iodide and the POC(H)OP ligand; this appears to prevent the approach of the central carbon of the ligand to the Cu centers.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".