A Study of Ligand Coordination at Lanthanide and Group 4 Metal Centers by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reactions of lanthanide amide reagents Ln{N(SiMe 3 ) 2 } 3 (where Ln = Sm, Gd, Ho, or Yb) with amine-bis(phenol) ligands were probed using inert atmosphere matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) (anthracene matrix); the technique rapidly confirms ligand coordination, giving excellent agreement with theoretical isotope patterns for lanthanide(amine-phenolate) fragments. Spectra on isolated lanthanide amine-bis(phenolate) amido complexes are similar to those seen from small scale parallel reactions of metal amides and protonated ligands. Although in all cases molecular ion peaks are not observed, peaks for lanthanide arene complexes, [M + arene] +•, formed in situ, are seen. The lack of molecular ion peak is due to difficulties in ionizing Ln 3+ complexes by charge transfer. However, if Nujol is used to disperse the analyte and matrix prior to analysis rather than toluene, arene adducts are not observed. Similar phenol-derived ligands can be reacted with diamagnetic M(NMe 2 ) 4 (where M = Ti or Zr), and amine-phenolate complex formation is again confirmed easily by MALDI-TOF MS or LDI-TOF MS (no matrix). These complexes were also characterized by NMR spectroscopy and elemental analysis on isolated samples.
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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".