Amine−Amide Equilibrium in Gold(III) Complexes and a Gold(III)−Gold(I) Aurophilic Bond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ligands HN(CH2-2-C5H4N)2, BPMA, and PhCH2N(CH2-2-C5H4N)2, BBPMA, react with Na[AuCl4] to give the cationic complexes [AuCl(BPMA-H)]+ and [AuCl(BBPMA)]2+, respectively. The amido complex [AuCl(BPMA-H)]+ undergoes easy inversion at the amido nitrogen atom and can be reversibly protonated by triflic acid to give [AuCl(BPMA)]2+. The complex [AuCl(BBPMA)]2+ is easily decomposed in aqueous solution by cleavage of a carbon-nitrogen bond or, in dilute HCl solution, by protonation of the ligand to give [BBPMAH2]Cl[AuCl4] The complexes [BBPMAH2]Cl[AuCl4] and [BBPMAH2]Cl[AuCl2] can be formed by direct reaction of BBPMA with H[AuCl4]. Unusual forms of gold(III)...gold(III) and gold(III)...gold(I) aurophilic bonding are observed in the salts [AuCl(BPMA-H)][PF6] and [AuCl(BPMA-H)][AuCl2], respectively. The first comparison of the structures of gold(III) amine and amido complexes, in the cations [AuCl(BPMA-H)]+ and [AuCl(BPMA)]2+, indicates that there is little ppi-dpi bonding in the amido-gold bond and that the amide exerts a stronger trans influence than the amine group.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".