Tungsten: Organometallic ChemistryBased in part on the article Tungsten: Organometallic Chemistry by Andreas Mayr which appeared in the<i>Encyclopedia of Inorganic Chemistry, First Edition</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article surveys the organometallic chemistry of tungsten in a systematic manner according to the various types of complexes known to contain tungsten–carbon bonds. The first section deals with complexes having the inorganic ligands CO (carbonyl), CNR (isocyanide), and CN (cyanide) in the metal's coordination sphere. The second and by far the largest section considers tungsten complexes containing organic ligands. This section is divided into subsections dealing with compounds having η1‐hydrocarbyl ligands (i.e. alkyl and aryl complexes, vinyl and alkynyl complexes, carbene complexes, and carbyne complexes), η2‐hydrocarbon ligands (i.e. alkene complexes and alkyne complexes), η3‐hydrocarbon ligands (i.e. allyl complexes), η4‐hydrocarbon ligands (i.e. diene complexes), η5‐hydrocarbon ligands (i.e. cyclopentadienyl complexes), and η6‐hydrocarbon ligands (i.e. arene complexes). Within each category of complex, the material is generally presented in the following order: common methods of synthesis of these complexes, their characteristic physical properties, and their representative chemical properties. The latter are usually illustrated by examples taken from the literature published since 1992, the final year of coverage by the first edition of the Encyclopedia of Inorganic Chemistry. Other articles in the current encyclopedia also cover some aspects of this chemistry, most notably, alkene and alkyne metathesis reactions mediated by organotungsten complexes, the organometallic chemistry of di‐ and polynuclear tungsten complexes, and tungsten compounds containing main group element ligands. Consequently, these topics are not specifically discussed in this article.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.063 |
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".