Transformation of μ4-phosphinidenes at an Ru5 Center: isolation and structural characterization of hydroxyphosphinidene cluster acids, fluorophosphinidenes, and a novel μ5-phosphide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acid hydrolysis of [Ru5(CO)15(μ4-PNiPr2)] (2) or protonation of the anionic PO cluster [Ru5(CO)15(μ4-PO)]- (3) affords the hydroxyphosphinidene complex [Ru5(CO)15(μ4-POH)]·1·[H2NiPr2][CF3SO3], which cocrystallizes with a hydrogen-bonded ammonium triflate salt. Reaction of [Ru5(CO)15(μ4-PNiPr2)] (2) with bis(diphenylphosphino)methane (dppm) leads to [Ru5(CO)13(μ-dppm)(μ4-PNiPr2)] (4). Acid hydrolysis of 4 leads to the dppm-substituted hydroxyphosphinidene [Ru5(CO)13(μ-dppm)(μ4-POH)] (5), which is analogous to 1, but unlike 1, can be readily isolated as the free hydroxyphosphinidene acid. Compound 5 can also be formed by reaction of 3 with dppm and acid. The cationic hydride cluster [Ru5(CO)13(μ-dppm)(μ3-H)(μ4-POH)][CF3SO3] (6) can be isolated from the same reaction if chromatography is not used. Compound 4 also reacts with HBF4 to form the fluorophosphinidene cluster [Ru5(CO)13(μ-dppm)(μ4-PF)] (7), while reaction with HCl leads to the μ-chloro, μ5-phosphide cluster [Ru5(CO)13(μ-dppm)(μ-Cl)(μ5-P)] (8).
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".