Magnetic and Electrochemical Properties of a Heterobridged μ‐Phenoxido–μ<sub>1,1</sub>‐Azide Dinickel(II) Compound: A Unique Example Demonstrating the Bridge Distance Dependency of Exchange Integral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The synthesis, structure, magnetic and electrochemical properties of the heterobridged μ‐phenoxido–μ1,1‐azide dinickel(II) compound [NiII2(HL1)3(μ1,1‐N3)]·3H2O (1) derived from the tetradentate Schiff base ligand N‐(2‐hydroxyethyl)‐3‐methoxysalicylaldimine (H2L1) are described. The title compound crystallizes in the triclinic system (space group P$\bar {1}$ ). Electrochemical analyses reveal that compound 1 exhibits two‐step quasireversible couples in the reduction window with E1/2 values of –1412 and –1762 mV. The variable‐temperature (2–300 K) magnetic susceptibilities at 1 T of the title compound were measured. The interaction between the metal centres is weak ferromagnetic (J = 5.0 cm–1, g = 2.23, D1 = 29.2 cm–1 and D2 = 10.7 cm–1). Comparison of the exchange integral of 1 with that of the only reported μ‐phenoxido–μ1,1‐azide dinickel(II) compound results in the emergence of a unique example of the dependence of strength of magnetic exchange interaction on the metal–ligand bridge distance. (© Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2009)
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".