Nickel-Catalyzed O-Arylation of Primary or Secondary Aliphatic Alcohols with (Hetero)aryl Chlorides: A Comparison of Ni(I) and Ni(II) Precatalysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative experimental and computational study examining the interplay of the ancillary ligand structure and Ni oxidation state in the Ni-catalyzed C(sp 2 )–O cross-coupling of (hetero)aryl chlorides and primary or secondary aliphatic alcohols is presented, focusing on PAd-DalPhos ( L1 )-, CyPAd-DalPhos ( L2 )-, PAd2-DalPhos ( L3 )-, and DPPF ( L4 )-ligated [( L )NiCl] n ( n = 1 or 2) and ( L )Ni( o -tol)Cl precatalysts. Both L1 and L2 were found to outperform the other ligands examined, with the latter proving to be superior overall. While Ni(II) precatalysts generally outperformed Ni(I) species, in some instances the catalytic abilities of Ni(I) precatalysts were competitive with those of Ni(II). Density-functional theory calculations indicate the favorability of a Ni(0)/Ni(II) catalytic cycle featuring turnover-limiting C–O bond reductive elimination over a Ni(I)/Ni(III) cycle involving turnover-limiting C–Cl oxidative addition.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".