Organoplatinum Chemistry Related to Alkane Oxidation: The Effect of a Nitro Substituent in Ligands Having an Appended Phenol Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The organoplatinum chemistry of the ligands 2-C5H4N-CH2-NH-C6H3-2-OH-5-X (L1, X = H; L3, X = NO2) and 2-C5H4N-CH=N-C6H3-2-OH-5-X (L2, X = H; L4, X = NO2), which contain an appended phenol substituent, is described. Comparisons are made between the ligands with amine or imine groups (L1, L3 vs. L2, L4) and ligands with X = H or NO2 (L1, L2 vs. L3, L4), and major differences are observed. Thus, on reaction with the cycloneophylplatinum(II) complex [{Pt(CH2CMe2C6H4)(μ-SMe2)}2], ligands L1, L2 and L4 give the corresponding platinum(II) complexes [Pt(CH2CMe2C6H4)(κ2-N,N′-L)], containing a Pt··HO hydrogen bond, whereas L3 gives a mixture of isomeric platinum(IV) hydride complexes [PtH(CH2CMe2C6H4)(κ3-N,N′,O-L3-H)], which are formed by oxidative addition of the phenol O-H bond and which react further with oxygen to give [Pt(OH)(CH2CMe2C6H4)(κ3-N,N′,O-L3-H)]. The differences in reactivity are proposed to be due to the greater acidity of the nitro-substituted phenol groups in L3 and L4 and to the greater ability of the deprotonated amine ligand L3 over L4 to stabilize platinum(IV) by adopting the fac-κ3-N,N′,O-L3-H coordination mode.
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 | 0.000 | 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".