Coordination Polymers from the Self-Assembly of Silver(I) Salts and Two Nonlinear Aliphatic Dinitrile Ligands, <i>cis</i>-1,3-Cyclopentanedicarbonitrile and <i>cis</i>-1,3-Bis(cyanomethyl)cyclopentane: Synthesis, Structures, and Photoluminescent Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six coordination polymers with aliphatic dinitrile ligands, {[Ag(cpdcn)2]ClO4}n (6a), {[Ag(cpdcn)2]PF6}n (6b), {[Ag(cpdcn)2]SbF6}n (6c, cpdcn = cis-1,3-cyclopentanedicarbonitrile), {[Ag(bcmcp)2] ClO4}n (7a), {[Ag(bcmcp)2]PF6}n (7b), {[Ag(bcmcp)2]SbF6}n, (7c, bcmcp = cis-1,3-bis(cyanomethyl)cyclopentane) have been synthesized and structurally characterized by IR spectroscopy, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and X-ray crystallography. Both ligands used in this study are meso-compounds; while the ligand cpdcn is structurally rigid, the ligand bcmcp has greater conformational flexibility. X-ray crystallography has revealed that structures 6a-c consist of chiral 1D-polymers. The structure of complexes 7a and 7b are best described as a 2D chiral (4,4) square mesh with 3-fold parallel interpenetration. Surprisingly, complex 7c was characterized to be an achiral 1D coordination polymer. The synthesis of the ligands, IR spectra of the free and coordinated CN groups, DSC and TGA, and the photoluminescent properties of complexes 6a-c and 7a-c are also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".