Supramolecular Gold(I) Thiobarbiturate Chemistry: Combining Aurophilicity and Hydrogen Bonding to Make Polymers, Sheets, and Networks
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
The cooperative forces of aurophilic and hydrogen bonding have been used in the self-assembly of phosphine or diphosphine complexes of gold(I) with the thiolate ligands derived from 2-thiobarbituric acid, SC(4)H(4)N(2)O(2), by single or double deprotonation. The reaction of the corresponding gold(I) trifluoroacetate complex with SC(4)H(4)N(2)O(2) gave the complexes [Au(SC(4)H(3)N(2)O(2))(PPh(3))], 1, [(AuSC(4)H(3)N(2)O(2))(2)(micro-LL)], with LL = Ph(2)PCH(2)PPh(2), 2a, Ph(2)P(CH(2))(3)PPh(2), 2b, or Ph(2)PCH=CHPPh(2), 2c, or the cyclic complex [Au(2)(micro-SC(4)H(2)N(2)O(2))(micro-Ph(2)PCH(2)CH(2)PPh(2))], 3. In the case with LL = Ph(2)P(CH(2))(6)PPh(2), the reaction led to loss of the diphosphine ligand to give [Au(6)(SC(4)H(3)N(2)O(2))(6)], 4, a hexagold(I) cluster complex in which each gold(I) center has trigonal AuS(2)N coordination. Structure determinations show that 1 has no aurophilic bonding, 2b, 3, and 4 have intramolecular aurophilic bonding, and 2c has intermolecular aurophilic bonding that contributes to the supramolecular structure. All the complexes undergo supramolecular association through strong NH...O and/or OH...N hydrogen bonding, and complex 3 also takes part in CH...O hydrogen bonding. The supramolecular association leads to formation of interesting polymer, sheet, or network structures, and 4 has a highly porous and stable lattice structure.
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) | 0.001 | 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