Catechol‐Bearing Dipyrazinylpyridine Complexes of Ruthenium(II)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The new tridentate ligand 4‐(3,4‐methylenedioxyphenyl)‐2,6‐dipyrazinylpyridine ( 2 ) was prepared in good yield in a one‐pot reaction. The Ru II complexes [Ru( 2 ) 2 ](PF 6 ) 2 and [Ru( 1 )( 2 )](PF 6 ) 2 [ 1 is 2,6‐dipyrazinyl‐4‐(4‐tolyl)pyridine] were prepared in good yields and tested as photosensitizers against [Ru( 1 ) 2 ](PF 6 ) 2 and [Ru(ttpy) 2 ](PF 6 ) 2 [ttpy is 4′‐(4‐tolyl)‐2,2′:6′,2″‐terpyridine]. The photosensitization ability follows the order [Ru( 1 ) 2 ](PF 6 ) 2 > [Ru( 1 )( 2 )](PF 6 ) 2 > [Ru( 2 ) 2 ](PF 6 ) 2 >> [Ru(ttpy) 2 ](PF 6 ) 2 , which is explainable in terms of mechanism and driving force. Hydrolysis of the methylene acetal function affords the catechol‐appended complexes [Ru( 3 ) 2 ](PF 6 ) 2 and [Ru( 1 )( 3 )](PF 6 ) 2 [ 3 is 4‐(3,4‐dihydroxyphenyl)‐2,6‐dipyrazinylpyridine] in excellent yields. These insoluble, paramagnetic precipitates when tested as photosensitizers in homogeneous solution and in one case adsorbed on titania are able to generate photocurrents in a photovoltaic cell, albeit more weakly compared to the so‐called N719 dye. (© Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2007)
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".