Monomeric, one- and two-dimensional networks incorporating (2,6-Me2C6H3S)2Pb building blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amine coordination of lead(II) has been examined through the preparation and structural analysis of Lewis base adducts of bis(thiolato)lead(II) complexes. Reaction of Pb(OAc)(2) with 2,6-dimethylbenzenethiol affords (2,6-Me(2)C(6)H(3)S)(2)Pb (6) in high yield. The solubility of 6 in organic solvents allows for the preparation of the 1:2 Lewis acid-base adduct [(2,6-Me(2)C(6)H(3)S)(2)Pb(py)(2)](7), and 1:1 adducts [(2,6-Me(2)C(6)H(3)S)(2)Pb(micro(2)-bipy)](infinity](8) and [(2,6-Me(2)C(6)H(3)S)(2)Pb(micro(2)-pyr)](infinity)(9)(where py = pyridine, bipy = 4,4'-bipyridyl and pyr = pyrazine) from reaction with an excess of the appropriate amine. In contrast to 7, reaction of (C(6)H(5)S)(2)Pb (1) with pyridine afforded the 2:1 adduct [(C(6)H(5)S)(4)Pb(2)(py)](infinity)(10). Compounds were characterized via elemental analysis, FT-IR, solution (1)H and (13)C[(1)H](6) NMR spectroscopy, and X-ray crystallography (7-10). The structures of 7-9 show the thiolate groups occupying two equatorial positions and two amine nitrogen atoms occupying axial coordination sites, yielding distorted see-saw coordination geometries, or distorted trigonal bipyramids if an equatorial lone pair on lead is considered. The absence of intermolecular contacts in 7 and 8 result in monomeric and one-dimensional polymeric structures, respectively. Weak Pb...S intermolecular contacts in 9 result in the formation of a two-dimensional macrostructure. In contrast, the structure of , shows extensive intermolecular Pb...S interactions, resulting in five- and six-coordinate bonding environments for lead(II), and a complex polymeric structure in the solid state. This demonstrates the ability of the 2,6-dimethylphenylthiolate ligand to limit intermolecular lead-sulfur interactions, while allowing the axial coordination of amine Lewis base ligands.
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 | 0.001 |
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".