Magnetostructural characterization of copper(II) hydroxide dimers and coordination polymers coordinated to apical isothiocyanate and cyanide-based counteranions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five Cu(II) hydroxo-bridged complexes of the type [Cu2(μ-OH)2(L)2][A]x·yH2O (where L = 1,10-phenanthroline, A = NCS–, x = 2, y = 2 (1); L = 2,2′-bipyridine, A = NCS–, x = 2, y = 1 (2); L = 2,2′-bipyridine, A = [Au(CN)4]–, x = 2, y = 0 (3) and 2 (4); L = N,N,N′,N′-teteramethylethylenediamine, A = [Pt(SCN)4]2–, x = 1, y = 0 (5)) have been prepared and have been characterized by elemental analysis, IR and Raman spectroscopy, X-ray crystallography, and SQUID magnetometry. Complexes 1 and 2 consist of five-coordinate Cu(II) hydroxo-bridged dinuclear units bound to two NCS– anions in the apical positions, 3 and 4 are pseudo-polymorphs of a Cu(II) hydroxo-bridged dimer core with [Au(CN)4]– counteranions, and 5 is a coordination polymer of Cu(II) hydroxo-bridged dimers with trans-bridging [Pt(SCN)4]2– anions coordinated in the apical position of the five-coordinate Cu(II) centres. The magnetic susceptibility versus temperature for each system was measured, fit to obtain J-coupling values (which range from –0.37 to 17.8 cm−1), and qualitatively compared to known magnetostructural correlation parameters.
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".