Synthesis and Characterization of Ruthenium Complexes with Two Fluorinated Amino Alkoxide Chelates. The Quest To Design Suitable MOCVD Source Reagents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The synthesis and characterization of ruthenium complexes [Ru(CO) 2 (amak) 2 ] and [Ru(COD)(amak) 2 ] (where COD = 1,4-cyclooctadiene) are reported, where (amak)H is an abbreviation for a series of fluorinated amino alcohol ligands with formula HOC(CF 3 ) 2 CH 2 NHR, where R = H, Me, Et, and (CH 2 ) 2 OMe. The carbonyl complex [Ru(CO) 2 (amak1) 2 ] ( 1 with R = H) was examined by X-ray diffraction (XRD), showing an octahedral coordination for the Ru atom, with two cis carbonyl ligands and two amino alkoxide chelates. For the COD complexes [Ru(COD)(amak1) 2 ] ( 3 with R = H) and [Ru(COD)(amak3) 2 ] ( 4 with R = Et), the structural analysis indicated the existence of two distinct spatial arrangements of amino alkoxide chelates with respect to the coordinated COD ligand, depending on the type of amino group selected. All of these complexes show good volatility and thermal stability. For complexes 2 and 4, which are more volatile and low-melting, chemical vapor deposition (CVD) experiments were conducted at temperatures of 325−425 °C, using both H 2 and a mixture of 2% O 2 in argon as the carrier gas. Scanning electron micrographs (SEMs) were taken to reveal the surface morphologies; these Ru thin films were found to contain low levels of carbon and oxygen impurities, as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".