Gold(I)−Dithioether Supramolecular Polymers: Synthesis, Characterization, and Luminescence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of discrete compounds and supramolecular polymers were synthesized by self-assembly of dithioether building blocks and HAuCl4.3H2O. In complexes 1 {[AuL(1-Me)Cl], where L(1-Me) is bis(methylthio)methane} and 2 {[Au2L(2-Ph)Cl2], where L(2-Ph) is 1,2-bis(phenylthio)ethane}, adjacent units are connected via aurophilic interactions. Complex 1, a one-dimensional (1D) supramolecular polymer, and complex 2, a two-dimensional supramolecular network, both feature nearly linear [Au-Au-](infinity) chains. Complexes 4a, 4b, and 4c, all of which contain 1,3-bis(phenylthio)propane (L(3-Ph)), are polymorphs having the composition [Au2L(3-Ph)Cl2]. Complex 3 {[Au2L(1-Ph)Cl2], where L(1-Ph) is bis(phenylthio)methane}and complexes 4a and 4b consist of nearly identical 1D supramolecular polymers formed through Au-Au interactions. The third polymorph, 4c, is a molecular complex, as it does not have metal-metal interactions. Complex 5 {[Au2L(4-Ph)Cl2], where L(4-Ph) is 1,4-bis(phenylthio)butane} is also molecular. UV-vis spectra showed that the absorption bands of these complexes are allowed ligand-centered transitions between 230 and 260 nm. Complexes 1, 2, and 6 {[AuL(3-Me)Cl], where L(3-Me) is 1,3-bis(methylthio)propane} exhibited solid-state luminescence at 5 K with vibronic progressions and band maxima at approximately 570 nm. It is suggested that complex 6 contains [Au-Au-](infinity) chains.
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.
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) | 0.011 | 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 it