MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401660020 · doi:10.1021/acscatal.4c02523

Hydrogenation of CO<sub>2</sub> by a Tripodal Palladium Pincer Complex

2024· article· en· W4401660020 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nandita Biswas, Peter Lönnecke, Evgueni Kirillov, Dmitri Gelman

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Catalysis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCarbon dioxide utilization in catalysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIsrael Science FoundationInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthHebrew University of Jerusalem
KeywordsHeterolysisChemistryPincer movementCatalysisPalladiumFormateReactivity (psychology)Pincer ligandLigand (biochemistry)PhotochemistryHydrideTrigonal bipyramidal molecular geometrySteric effectsSodium formateMedicinal chemistryInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryHydrogenCrystal structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide This study presents the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide to formate catalyzed by a palladium catalyst based on a tripodal pincer ligand. Our work demonstrates how this catalyst design facilitates the formation of more hydridic anionic trigonal bipyramidal Pd–H species, efficiently promoting hydride transfer to CO 2 . Through experimental and theoretical studies, we demonstrated that our catalyst operates via a hydrogen activation mechanism involving the heterolytic splitting of H 2 between the sterically demanding trigonal pyramidal palladium fragment and the loosely coordinated PCy 3 ligand. Beyond the fundamental interest in understanding the reactivity of these compounds, our study describes a practical catalyst for CO 2 hydrogenation, demonstrating high turnover numbers (TON = 3.5 × 10 3 ) under mild reaction conditions.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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)0.0040.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS CatalysisSame topicCarbon dioxide utilization in catalysisFrench-language works237,207