Metathesis and Metallacycle Reactivity of d<sup>10</sup> Ni Perfluorocarbenes with Alkenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We showed previously that the d 10 nickel perfluorocarbene complex, P 3 Ni═CF(CF 3 ) [P = P(O i Pr) 3 ], 1, reacts with fluoroalkenes to produce both 4-membered nickelacycles and metathesis products via separate reaction pathways. Herein, we compare the reactivity of 1 with a variety of alkenes. The reaction of 1 with hexafluoropropene [CF 2 ═CF(CF 3 ), HFP] affords a single metallacycle, taking advantage of the diradical mechanism in which the carbene carbon adds to the CF 2 end of HFP. In contrast, 1 and perfluoro(methyl vinyl ether), CF 2 ═CF(OCF 3 ), yield both metallacycle and metathesis products, with preferential formation of the more stabilized difluorocarbene [P 3 Ni═CF 2 vs P 3 Ni═CF(OCF 3 )] and a higher ratio of metathesis to metallacycle products than using tetrafluoroethylene or vinylidene difluoride. Attempts to form fluoropolymers via ring-opening metathesis polymerization of perfluorocyclobutene and hexafluorocyclopentene briefly gave new nickel carbenes but then yielded Ni fluoroalkene complexes with the loss of the CF(CF 3 ) unit. Surprisingly, both ethylene and styrene derivatives gave only metallacycles, although evidence was obtained for alkene coordination to nickel; computational studies are presented to identify the origin of these observations. Finally, insertion of ethylene into the ethylene-derived nickelacyclobutane afforded a new fluorinated alkene, CH 2 ═CHCH 2 CH 2 CHFCF 3, formed presumably via nickelacyclohexane through selective β-H and reductive eliminations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".