<scp>Group‐IV‐based</scp> selective <scp>CH</scp> bond activation of a diamondoid—A density functional theory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Selective synthetic modifications on diamondoids (well‐defined molecular nano‐diamonds) are difficult. Group IV organometallic complexes are promising systems for CH bond activation. We study the CH bond activation of the hard‐to‐activate CH 2 positions of the adamantyl group (the smallest diamondoid) using density functional theory. As a platform for activation, we tether the adamantyl group to the cyclopentadienyl in a substituted bis‐cyclopentadienyl group IV metal diphenyl complex. The mechanism proposed in the experimental paper reporting the activation of C(Me) 2 ‐Ph or t‐ Bu groups using Zr(IV) involves an η 2 ‐benzyne complex intermediate. Our computational work confirms the two‐step mechanism proposed for activation of C(Me) 2 ‐Ph or t‐ Bu using Zr(IV) and further extends it to Ti(IV) and Hf(IV). The first step forms the benzyne complex. In the second step, the cyclopentadienyl‐bound group is activated through a mechanism that closely resembles a σ‐bond metathesis when the benzyne complex is described as a metallacyclopropene We demonstrate through computations that the two‐step reaction can be successfully applied to the adamantyl group. CH bond activation of adamantyl is found to be thermodynamically and kinetically feasible. The important question of regioselectivity is addressed. We predict that α‐CH bond activation will be achievable with Ti (thermodynamic control), and selective γ‐CH bond activation with Zr (kinetic or thermodynamic control).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".