Characterising Lone‐Pair Activity of Lead(II) by <sup>207</sup>Pb Solid‐State NMR Spectroscopy: Coordination Polymers of [N(CN)<sub>2</sub>]<sup>−</sup> and [Au(CN)<sub>2</sub>]<sup>−</sup> with Terpyridine Ancillary Ligands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of lead(II) coordination polymers containing [N(CN)(2)](-) (DCA) or [Au(CN)(2)](-) bridging ligands and substituted terpyridine (terpy) ancillary ligands ([Pb(DCA)(2)] (1), [Pb(terpy)(DCA)(2)] (2), [Pb(terpy){Au(CN)(2)}(2)] (3), [Pb(4'-chloro-terpy){Au(CN)(2)}(2)] (4) and [Pb(4'-bromo-terpy)(μ-OH(2))(0.5){Au(CN)(2)}(2)] (5)) was spectroscopically examined by solid-state (207)Pb MAS NMR spectroscopy in order to characterise the structural and electronic changes associated with lead(II) lone-pair activity. Two new compounds, 2 and [Pb(4'-hydroxy-terpy){Au(CN)(2)}(2)] (6), were prepared and structurally characterised. The series displays contrasting coordination environments, bridging ligands with differing basicities and structural and electronic effects that occur with various substitutions on the terpyridine ligand (for the [Au(CN)(2)](-) polymers). (207)Pb NMR spectra show an increase in both isotropic chemical shift and span (Ω) with increasing ligand basicity (from δ(iso) = -3090 ppm and Ω = 389 ppm for 1 (the least basic) to δ(iso) = -1553 ppm and Ω = 2238 ppm for 3 (the most basic)). The trends observed in (207)Pb NMR data correlate with the coordination sphere anisotropy through comparison and quantification of the Pb-N bond lengths about the lead centre. Density functional theory calculations confirm that the more basic ligands result in greater p-orbital character and show a strong correlation to the (207)Pb NMR chemical shift parameters. Preliminary trends suggest that (207)Pb NMR chemical shift anisotropy relates to the measured birefringence, given the established correlations with structure and lone-pair activity.
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".