MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405015583 · doi:10.1021/jacs.4c11054

Intramolecular Csp<sup>3</sup>-H Activation at a Platinum(IV) Center Resulting from O<sub>2</sub> Activation: The Role of a Proton-Responsive Ligand and Trans Influence

2024· article· en· W4405015583 on OpenAlexafffund
Juan Rueda‐Espinosa, Wen Zhou, Jennifer A. Love, Shrinwantu Pal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCatalytic C–H Functionalization Methods
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia Graduate SchoolNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence FundCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsChemistryIntramolecular forcePlatinumLigand (biochemistry)Center (category theory)ProtonStereochemistryMedicinal chemistryCrystallographyCatalysisOrganic chemistryNuclear physicsReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerobic oxidation of a dimethylplatinum(II) complex featuring 1,1-di(2-pyridyl)ethanol as a supporting ligand leads to the formation of two unexpected Pt IV complexes (in ∼1:1 ratio), neither of which results from direct oxidation typical for Pt II centers supported by popular κ 2 -( N, N ) ligands. While one product features an isomerized Pt IV center stabilized by the κ 3 -( N, N, O ) ligand coordination mode, surprisingly, the other product results from intramolecular activation of the ligand methyl fragment. Mechanistic studies, reactivity of model complexes, and DFT calculations reveal that the critical proton-responsive nature of the ligand allows formation of intermediates that result in a concerted metalation deprotonation (CMD)-like C–H activation at Pt IV . To the best of our knowledge, this is the first mechanistic delineation of Csp 3 -H activation at Pt IV, despite being known for other high-valent platinum group metal centers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicCatalytic C–H Functionalization MethodsFrench-language works237,207