MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009580670 · doi:10.1515/chem-2015-0094

Crystallographic and structural characterization of heterometallic platinum clusters. Part IX. Heterooligonuclear Pt clusters

2015· article· en· W2009580670 on OpenAlexaff
Milan Melnı́k, Peter Mikuš, Clive Ε. Holloway

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetal complexes synthesis and properties
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriclinic crystal systemPlatinumCrystallographyMonoclinic crystal systemBond lengthTransition metalChemistryCrystal structureMaterials scienceCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This review classifies and analyzes over thirty heterooligonuclear platinum clusters with a wide variety of metal frameworks, from twelve to forty-four. There are thirteen heterometals (Ge, Sn, Hg, W, Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, Os, Ni, Cu, Ag, Au) which are the partners of platinum. The clusters mostly crystallize in monoclinic (36,4%) and triclinic (30,3%) crystal classes. Their structures are complex, with platinum most commonly preferring interstitial sites, such as the centroids of icosahedrons. There are examples of distortion isomerism. The most common ligands are CO and PPh3, and it is interesting that the mean Pt-CO and M-CO bond distances are identical at 1.84 Å. In contrast, the mean Pt-μCO and M-μCO are of values of 2.02 and 1.97 Å, respectively, while the Pt-PPh3 and M-PPh3 bond distances are 2.30 and 2.28 Å, respectively. The shortest Pt-Pt, Pt-M (non-transition) and Pt-M (transition) bond distances are 2.559(2) Å, 2.412(2) Å (M = Ge) and 2.510(2) Å (M = Ni).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen ChemistrySame topicMetal complexes synthesis and propertiesFrench-language works237,207