Crystallographic and structural characterizationof heterometallic platinum clusters Part VIII.Heteronona- and heterodecanuclear clusters
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
Abstract This review classifies and analyses fifty heteronona- and heterodecanuclear Pt clusters of metal composition: Pt4Ru5, Pt3Ru6, Pt20sr PtRh8, PtAu8; Pt6M4, Pt5M5, Pt4M6, Pt3M2, Pt2M8, PtM9, Pt3Ru6M and PtAu8M. There are nine different heterometals: M = Ru, Au, Ag, Cu, Hg, Os, Rh, Ir and Fe, of which Ru and Au are the most frequent. The clusters crystallize mostly into two crystal classes, monoclinic (74%) and triclinic (18%), and their structures are complex. Three triangular layers of nine metal atoms arranged in the form of a face-shared bioctahedron are common in the series of heterononanuclear clusters. In the series of heterodecanuclear clusters distorted skeletal icosahedrons, where a central platinum atom is surrounded by nine metal atoms, and face (edge) shared (fused) bioctahedral cluster of the metal atoms are the most common. The most frequent ligands are CO and PPh3. The shortest metal-metal bond distances are: 2.540(4) Å (Pt-Fe), 2.580(2) Å (Ru-Ru), 2.584 Å (Pt-Pt) and 2.629(4) Å (Cu-Au). Several relationships between the structural parameters were found and are discussed. Some clusters contain two crystallographically independent molecules within the same crystal and are examples of distortion isomerism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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