Anion Dependent Structures of Luminescent Silver(I) Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reaction of AgX, where X = trifluoroacetate (CF(3)CO(2)(-), tfa), nitrate (NO(3)(-)), trifluoromethanesulfonate (triflate, CF(3)SO(3)(-), OTf), hexafluorophosphate (PF(6)(-)), or perchlorate (ClO(4)(-)), with 2,2',3' '-tripyridylamine (tpa) yields five novel silver(I) complexes, which have been structurally characterized. The five complexes have the same 1:1 stoichiometry of Ag/tpa but exhibit different modes of coordination, depending upon the counterion present in the compound. Compound 1, [Ag(tpa)(tfa)](n)(), forms a 1D coordination polymer of [Ag(tpa)(tfa)](2) dimer units linked through bridging tfa counterions. Compound 2, [Ag(tpa)(CH(3)CN)(NO(3))](n), forms a zigzag chain 1D coordination polymer exclusively through Ag-N bonds. In compounds 1 and 2, each tpa ligand is bound to two Ag(I) ions via a 2-py and a 3-py group. Compound 3, [Ag(tpa)(OTf)](n), forms a ribbonlike 1D coordination polymer, in which each tpa ligand binds to three different silver centers via all three pyridyl groups, and the counterion remains coordinated to the Ag(I) center. Compounds 4, [Ag(tpa)(CH(3)CN)](n)(PF(6))(n), and 5, [Ag(tpa)(CH(3)CN)](n)() (ClO(4))(n), display ribbonlike structures resembling that of 3, except that the counterions are not coordinated. All complexes are luminescent in acetonitrile solution, with emission maxima in the near-UV region (lambda(max) = 366, 368, 367, 367, and 368 nm for 1-5, respectively). At 77 K, the emission maxima are red-shifted to lambda(max) = 452, 453, 450, 450, and 454 nm for 1-5, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".