Bonding Behavior of Co(CO)<sub>3</sub>L (L = CO, PPh<sub>3</sub>) Building Blocks in Platinum−Cobalt Carbonyl Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reaction of [Co(CO)(4)](-) with [Pt(2)Cl(mu-PPh(2))(PPh(3))(3)] (1:1 ratio), which was prepared in situ by reaction of aqueous HCl with the orthometalated complex [Pt(2)(mu-PPh(2))(mu-o-C(6)H(4)PPh(2))(PPh(3))(2)], afforded the deep green triangular cluster [Pt(2)Co(mu-PPh(2))(CO)(4)(PPh(3))(2)], 7. X-ray crystallographic analysis reveals that this new cluster contains two formally monoanionic fragments, PPh(2-) and Co(CO)(4-), that bridge a d(9)-d(9) Pt(I)-Pt(I) metal-metal bond. Whereas tetracarbonylcobaltate is generally bonded to only one metal center as a 2e donor ligand, it is best viewed here as a formally 4e donor anionic metalloligand. This model leads then to the usual 16e count for each Pt center and relates this metalloligand to other anionic bridging ligands, such as PPh(2-). A comparative EHMO bonding analysis of [Co(CO)(3)L](-) (L = CO, PR(3)) fragments is presented which takes into account the possible coordination geometries about cobalt, trigonal bipyramidal (with C(3v) local symmetry) or edge-capped tetrahedral when referring to the ligand polyhedron (with C(2v) or C(s) symmetry). The results support the description of this unusual bridging bonding mode.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".