Synthesis and Structural Comparison of a Series of Divalent Ln(Tp<sup>R,R</sup><sup>‘</sup>)<sub>2</sub>(Ln = Sm, Eu, Yb) and Trivalent Sm(Tp<sup>Me</sup><sub><sup>2</sup></sub>)<sub>2</sub>X (X = F, Cl, I, BPh<sub>4</sub>) Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reaction of LnI2 (Ln = Sm, Yb) with two equivalents of NaTp(Me2) or reduction of Eu(Tp(Me2))2OTf gives good yields of the highly insoluble homoleptic Ln(II) complexes, Ln(Tp(Me2))2 (Ln = Sm (1a), Yb (2a), Eu (3a)). Use of the additionally 4-ethyl substituted Tp(Me2,4Et) ligand produces the analogous, but soluble Ln(Tp(Me2,4Et))2 (1-3b) complexes. Soluble compounds are also obtained with the Tp(Ph) and Tp(Tn) ligands (Tn = thienyl), Ln(Tp(Ph))2 (Ln = Sm, 1c; Yb, 2c) and Ln(Tp(Tn))2 (Ln = Sm, 1d; Yb, 2d). To provide benchmark parameters for structural comparison the series of Sm(Tp(Me2))2X complexes (X = F, 1e; Cl, 1f; Br, 1g; I, 1h; BPh4, 1j) were prepared either via oxidation of the Sm(Tp(Me2))2 or salt metathesis from SmX3 (X = Cl, Br, I). The solid-state structures of 1-3a, 1b, 1-2c and 1e, 1f, 1h, and 1j were determined by single-crystal X-ray diffraction. The homoleptic bis-Tp complexes are all six-coordinate with trigonal antiprismatic geometries, planes of the kappa(3)-Tp ligands are parallel to one another. In the series of Sm(Tp(Me2))2X complexes the structure changes from seven-coordinate molecular compounds, with intact Sm-X bonds, for X = F, Cl, to six-coordinate ionic structures [Sm(Tp(Me2))2]X (X = I, BPh4), suitable crystals of the bromide compound could not be obtained. The dependence of the structures on the size of X is understandable in terms of the interplay between the size of the cleft that the [Sm(Tp(Me2))2](+) fragment can make available and the donor ability of the anionic group toward the hard Sm(III) center.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".