Molecular Structures and Excited States of CpM(CO)<sub>2</sub> (Cp = η<sup>5</sup>-C<sub>5</sub>H<sub>5</sub>; M = Rh, Ir) and [Cl<sub>2</sub>Rh(CO)<sub>2</sub>]<sup>-</sup>. Theoretical Evidence for a Competitive Charge Transfer Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular structures and excited states of CpM(CO)(2) (Cp = eta(5)-C(5)H(5); M = Rh, Ir) and [Cl(2)Rh(CO)(2)](-) complexes have been investigated using the B3LYP and the symmetry-adapted cluster (SAC)/SAC-configuration interaction (SAC-CI) theoretical methods. All the dicarbonyl complexes have singlet ground electronic states with large singlet-triplet separations. Thermal dissociations of CO from the parent dicarbonyls are energetically unfavorable. CO thermal dissociation is an activation process for [Cl(2)Rh(CO)(2)](-) while it is a repulsive potential for CpM(CO)(2). The natures of the main excited states of CpM(CO)(2) and [Cl(2)Rh(CO)(2)](-) are found to be quite different. For [Cl(2)Rh(CO)(2)](-), all the strong transitions are identified to be metal to ligand CO charge transfer (MLCT) excitations. A significant feature of the excited states of CpM(CO)(2) is that both MLCT excitation and a ligand Cp to metal and CO charge transfer excitation are strongly mixed in the higher energy states with the latter having the largest oscillator strength. A competitive charge transfer excited state has therefore been identified theoretically for CpRh(CO)(2) and CpIr(CO)(2). The wavelength dependence of the quantum efficiencies for the photoreactions of CpM(CO)(2) reported by Lees et al. can be explained by the existence of two different types of excited states. The origin of the low quantum efficiencies for the C-H/S-H bond activations of CpM(CO)(2) can be attributed to the smaller proportion of the MLCT excitation in the higher energy states.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".