MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321366279 · doi:10.1002/chem.202203774

Assessing Combinations of B(C<sub>6</sub>F<sub>5</sub>)<sub>3</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>‐Derived Molybdenum Nitrido Complexes for Heterolytic Bond Activation

2023· article· en· W4321366279 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anaïs Coffinet, David Specklin, Quentin Le Dé, Soukaina Bennaamane, Luna Muñoz, Laure Vendier, Eric Clot, Nicolas Mézailles, Antoine Simonneau

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry - A European Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganoboron and organosilicon chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de l'Education Nationale, de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la RechercheCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité de ToulouseHORIZON EUROPE European Research CouncilMitacs
KeywordsHeterolysisMolybdenumLigand (biochemistry)AdductChemistryLewis acids and basesCrystallographyBond lengthStereochemistryInorganic chemistryCatalysisCrystal structureOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two different dinitrogen‐derived molybdenum nitrido complexes varying by their geometry, ligand spheres and oxidations states were shown to engage their N ligand in dative bonding with the strong Lewis acid B(C6F5)3. The stable adducts were assessed for frustrated Lewis pair‐type heterolytic E−H bond splitting of hydrosilanes (E=Si) and HB(C6F5)2. Whereas Si−H bond activation was achieved, HB(C6F5)2 was shown to substitute B(C6F5)3 in a quantitative or equilibrated fashion, depending on the nature of the nitrido complex. No B−H bond splitting was observed. Thermodynamics of these reactions, computed by DFT, are in agreement with the experimental outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry - A European JournalSame topicOrganoboron and organosilicon chemistryFrench-language works237,207