Synthesis of Gold Phosphido Complexes Derived from Bis(secondary) Phosphines. Structure of Tetrameric [Au(MesP(CH<sub>2</sub>)<sub>3</sub>PMes)Au]<sub>4</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment of 2 equiv of Au(THT)Cl (THT = tetrahydrothiophene) with the bis(secondary) phosphines HP(R) approximately PH(R) (linker approximately = (CH(2))(3), R = Mes = 2,4,6-Me(3)C(6)H(2) (1), R = Is = 2,4,6-(i-Pr)(3)C(6)H(2) (2), R = Ph (4); approximately = (CH(2))(2), R = Is (3); HP(R) approximately PH(R) = 1,1'-(eta(5)-C(5)H(4)PHPh)(2)Fe (5)), gave the dinuclear complexes (AuCl)(2)(mu-HP(R) approximately PH(R)) (6-10). Dehydrohalogenation with aqueous ammonia gave the phosphido complexes [(Au)(2)(mu-P(R) approximately P(R))](n) (11-15). Ferrocenyl- and phenylphosphido derivatives 15 and 14 were insoluble; the latter was characterized by solid-state (31)P NMR spectroscopy. Isitylphosphido complexes 12 and 13 gave rise to broad, ill-defined NMR spectra. However, mesitylphosphido complex 11 was formed as a single product, which was characterized by multinuclear solution NMR spectroscopy, solid-state (31)P NMR spectroscopy, and elemental analyses. Mass spectrometry suggested that this material contained eight gold atoms (n = 4). A structure proposed on the basis of the (1)H NMR spectra, containing a distorted cube of phosphorus atoms, was confirmed by X-ray crystallographic structure determination. NMR spectroscopy, including measurement of the hydrodynamic radius of 11 by (1)H NMR DOSY, suggested that this structure was maintained in solution. Density functional theory (DFT) structural calculations on 11 were also in good agreement with the solid-state structure.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".