Approaching the Gas-Phase Structures of [AgS8]+ and [AgS16]+ in the Solid State
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
Upon treating elemental sulfur with [AgSbF(6)], [AgAl(hfip)(4)], [AgAl(pftb)(4)] (hfip=OCH(CF(3))(2), pftb =OC(CF(3))(3)) the compounds [Ag(S(8))(2)][SbF(6)] (1), [AgS(8)][Al(hfip)(4)] (2), and [Ag(S(8))(2)](+)[[Al(pftb)(4)](-) (3) formed in SO(2) (1), CS(2) (2), or CH(2)Cl(2) (3). Compounds 1-3 were characterized by single-crystal X-ray structure determinations: 1 by Raman spectroscopy, 2 and 3 by solution NMR spectroscopy and elemental analyses. Single crystals of [Ag(S(8))(2)](+)[Sb(OTeF(5))(6)](-) 4 were obtained from a disproportionation reaction and only characterized by X-ray crystal structure analysis. The Ag(+) ion in 1 coordinates two monodentate SbF(6) (-) anions and two bidentate S(8) rings in the 1,3-position. Compound 2 contains an almost C(4v)-symmetric [AgS(8)](+) moiety; this is the first example of an eta(4)-coordinated S(8) ring (d(Agbond;S)=2.84-3.00 A). Compounds 3 and 4, with the least basic anions, contain undistorted, approximately centrosymmetric Ag(eta(4)-S(8))(2) (+) cations with less symmetric eta(4)-coordinated S(8) rings (d(Agbond;S)=2.68-3.35 A). The thermochemical radius and volume of the undistorted Ag(S(8))(2) (+) cation was deduced as r(therm)(Ag(S(8))(2) (+))=3.378+ 0.076/-0.120 A and V(therm)(Ag(S(8))(2) (+))=417+4/-6 A(3). AgS(8) (+) and several isomers of the Ag(S(8))(2) (+) cation were optimized at the BP86, B3LYP, and MP2 levels by using the SVP and TZVPP basis sets. An analysis of the calculated geometries showed the MP2/TZVPP level to give geometries closest to the experimental data. Neither BP86 nor B3LYP reproduced the longer weak dispersive Agbond;S interactions in Ag(eta(4)-S(8))(2) (+) but led to Ag(eta(3)-S(8))(2) (+) geometries. With the most accurate MP2/TZVPP level, the enthalpies of formation of the gaseous [AgS(8)](+) and [Ag(S(8))(2)](+) cations were established as Delta(f)H(298)([Ag(S(8))(2)](+), g)=856 kJ mol(-1) and Delta(f)H(298)([AgS(8)](+), g)=902 kJ mol(-1). It is shown that the [AgS(8)](+) moiety in 2 and the [AgS(8)](2) (+) cations in 3 and 4 are the best approximation of these ions, which were earlier observed by MS methods. Both cations reside in shallow potential-energy wells where larger structural changes only lead to small increases in the overall energy. It is shown that the covalent Agbond;S bonding contributions in both cations may be described by two components: i) the interaction of the spherical empty Ag 5s(0) acceptor orbital with the filled S 3p(2) lone-pair donor orbitals and ii) the interaction of the empty Ag 5p(0) acceptor orbitals with the filled S 3p(2) lone-pair donor orbitals. This latter contribution is responsible for the observed low symmetry of the centrosymmetric Ag(eta(4)-S(8))(2) (+) cation. The positive charge transferred from the Ag(+) ion in 1-4 to the coordinated sulfur atoms is delocalized over all the atoms in the S(8) ring by multiple 3p(2)-->3sigma* interactions that result in a small long-short-long-short Sbond;S bond-length alternation starting from S1 with the shortest Agbond;S length. The driving force for all these weak bonding interactions is positive charge delocalization from the formally fully localized charge of the Ag(+) ion.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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