MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009754701 · doi:10.1021/ic050577n

Toward a More General Synthetic Route to Paramagnetic Solids Containing RCNSSS<sup>•</sup><sup>+</sup> Radical Cations. A Structure−Property Correlation for RCNSSS<sup>•</sup><sup>+</sup> (R = F<sub>5</sub>C<sub>2</sub>, Cl<sub>3</sub>C)

2006· article· en· W2009754701 on OpenAlexaff
A. Decken, Saba M. Mattar, Jack Passmore, Konstantin V. Shuvaev, Laurence K. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueInorganic Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetism in coordination complexes
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryParamagnetismCrystallographyPhysicsCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reaction of Cl3CN and F5C2CN with a 1:1 mixture of S4(AsF6)2 and S8(AsF6)2 affords the paramagnetic solids Cl3CNSSSAsF6 (1CCl3AsF6) and F5C2CNSSSAsF6 (1C2F5AsF6). Isotropic electron paramagnetic resonance spectra of 1CCl3AsF6 and 1C2F5AsF6 in SO2 consist of a single line with g = 2.01675 and 2.01580, respectively. The structure of 1CCl3AsF6 contains chains of radical cations with relatively close interchain interactions. In contrast, chains are isolated in 1C2F5AsF6. The magnetic behavior of both compounds was interpreted as that of 1D Heisenberg antiferromagnetic chains (1CCl3AsF6, J = -34 cm(-1), theta = -9 cm(-1), TIP = 0.00082, rho = 0.012; 1C2F5AsF6, J = -21 cm(-1), theta = -4.2 cm(-1), TIP = 0.00092, rho = 0.065). Density functional theory calculated and experimental magnetic coupling constants were in good agreement. The correlation between intermolecular S...S contacts and the strength of magnetic couplings was established.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInorganic ChemistrySame topicMagnetism in coordination complexesFrench-language works237,207