Reactivity of dinuclear palladium phosphine 1-azaallyl complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reactivity of two dinuclear palladium complexes, [PdMe(P^AzA)] 2 (1; P^AzA = [Ph 2 P(C 6 H 4 )NCHC(CH 3 ) 2 ] – ) and [Pd(P^AzA)] 2 (2), toward small molecules was evaluated. First, an optimized synthesis of 2 was demonstrated, which involved P^AzA ligand coordination to the Pd(I) dinuclear precursor [Pd(MeCN) 3 ] 2 [BF 4 ] 2 . Complexes 1 and 2 were treated with the Lewis bases pyridine and CO. With pyridine, the Pd(II) complex 1 afforded a mononuclear py adduct Pd(P^AzA)(py) (3), while the Pd(I) complex 2 underwent disproportionation to give Pd(P^AzA) 2 (4) and Pd black. With CO, 1 decomposed while 2 followed Lewis base-induced disproportionation. Both 1 and 2 reacted with H 2 to heterolytically cleave the small molecule by metal-ligand cooperative bond activation. Similar bond activation of the polarized O–H bonds of PhOH and H 2 O was observed. The heterolytic cleavage reactions permitted isolation and characterization of select reaction products. Dinuclear Pd(I) complex 2 reacted with H 2 to afford mononuclear [Pd(Ph 2 P(C 6 H 4 )NCH 2 C(CH 3 ) 2 CH( i-Pr)N(C 6 H 4 )PPh 2 )] (5), in which H 2 addition occurred to the ligand framework. Dinuclear Pd(II) complex 1 reacted with PhOH to afford the mononuclear phenoxide complex Pd(Me)(OPh)(P^Imine) (6; P^Imine = [Ph 2 P(C 6 H 4 )N=CH( i-Pr)]). The reactions of 1 and 2 show the importance of both the supporting ligand and metal oxidation states to dictate preferred reaction outcomes of dinuclear complexes.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".