A hemilabile binucleating pincer ligand for self-assembly of coordination oligomers and polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bis(PNP)-donor pincer ligand 1,4-C(6)H(4){N(CH(2)CH(2)PPh(2))(2)}(2), 1, contains weakly basic nitrogen donor atoms because the lone pairs of electrons are conjugated to the bridging phenylene group, and this feature is used in the synthesis of oligomers and polymers. The complexes [Pd(2)X(2)(mu-1)](OTf)(2), X=Cl, Br or OTf, contain the ligand 1 in bis(pincer) binding mode (mu-kappa(6)-P(4)N(2)), but [Pd(4)Cl(6)(mu(3-)1)(2)]Cl(2) contains the ligand in an unusual unsymmetrical mu(3)-kappa(5)-P(4)N binding mode. The bromide complex is suggested to exist as a polymer [{Pd(2)Br(4)(mu(4)-1)}(n)] with the ligands 1 in mu(4)-kappa(4)-P(4) binding mode. The methylplatinum(II) complexes [Pt(2)Me(4)(mu-1)] and [Pt(2)Me(2)(mu-1)](O(2)CCF(3))(2) contain the ligand in mu-kappa(4)-P(4) and mu-kappa(6)-P(4)N(2) bonding modes, while the silver(I) complex [Ag(2)(O(2)CCF(3))(2) (mu-1)] contains the ligand 1 in an intermediate bonding mode in which the nitrogen donors are very weakly coordinated. The complexes [Pd(2)(OTf)(2)(mu-1)](OTf)(2) and [Ag(2)(O(2)CCF(3))(2)(mu-1)] react with 4,4'-bipyridine to give polymers [Pd(2)(micro-bipy)(mu-1)](OTf)(4) and [Ag(2)(mu-bipy)(mu-1)](O(2)CCF(3))(2).
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".