Solvent–metal interactions in bis[1,2-dicarba-<i>closo</i>-dodecaboran(12)-1-yl]mercury(II) dichloromethane solvate and bis[1,12-dicarba-<i>closo</i>-dodecaboran(12)-1-yl]mercury(II) tetrahydrofuran solvate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The title compounds, bis[1,2-dicarba-closo-dodecaboran(12)-1-yl]mercury(II) dichloromethane solvate, [Hg(C(2)B(10)H(11))(2)].CH(2)Cl(2), (I), and bis[1,12-dicarba-closo-dodecaboran(12)-1-yl]mercury(II) tetrahydrofuran solvate, [Hg(C(2)B(10)H(11))(2)].C(4)H(8)O, (II), were prepared in excellent yields using a robust synthetic procedure involving the reaction of HgCl(2) with the appropriate monolithiocarborane. X-Ray analysis of the products revealed strong interactions between the Hg atoms in both complexes and the respective lattice solvent. The distances between the Hg(II) centers and the Cl atoms of the dichloromethane solvent molecule in the ortho-carborane derivative, (I), and the O atom of the tetrahydrofuran molecule in the para-carborane complex, (II), are shorter than the sums of the van der Waals radii for Hg and Cl (3.53 A), and Hg and O (3.13 A), respectively, indicating moderately strong interactions. There are two crystallographically independent molecules in the asymmetric unit of both compounds, which, in each case, are related by differing relative positions of the cages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".