Selectivity in the Self-Assembly of Organometallic Gold(I) Rings and [2]Catenanes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The selectivity of formation of organometallic rings or [2]catenanes [{X(4-C 6 H 4 OCH 2 C⋮CAu) 2 (μ-Ph 2 PZPPh 2 )} n ], n =1 or 2, respectively, has been studied as a function of the hinge group X and the diphosphine ligand [X = O, S, SO 2, CH 2, CMe 2, CPh 2, C(CF 3 ) 2, C 6 H 10; Z = (CH 2 ) m with m = 2−5]. When Z = (CH 2 ) 3, mixing of pairs of compounds with different C 2 v -symmetrical hinge groups (X, X‘ = SO 2, CH 2, CMe 2, CPh 2, C(CF 3 ) 2, C 6 H 10 ) led to formation of an equilibrium mixture containing the unsymmetrical [2]catenanes [{X(4-C 6 H 4 OCH 2 C⋮CAu) 2 (μ-Ph 2 PZPPh 2 )}{X‘(4-C 6 H 4 OCH 2 C⋮CAu) 2 (μ-Ph 2 PZPPh 2 )], as identified by NMR spectroscopy. The complexes with Z = (CH 2 ) 4 exist in solution predominantly as the macrocycles and so do not form analogous mixed diacetylide complexes. When the hinge group contained a prochiral carbon center (X = CHMe, CMePh, 1,1-indanylidene), only achiral macrocycles [X(4-C 6 H 4 OCH 2 C⋮CAu) 2 (μ-Ph 2 PZPPh 2 )] were formed in solution when Z = (CH 2 ) 4, but mixtures containing both achiral macrocycles and chiral [2]catenane were formed when Z = (CH 2 ) 3 . In several cases, the solid-state structures of the isolated complexes were not representative of the structures in solution, with macrocycles being dominant in solution and [2]catenanes formed preferentially during crystallization.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it