Synthesis, Characterization, and Photophysical Properties of Luminescent Gallium and Indium Complexes Constructed using Tridentate 6-Azolyl-2,2′-bipyridine Chelates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three systematically functionalized 6-azolyl-2,2′-bipyridine ligands were prepared from reactions initiated by 6-cyano-2,2′-bipyridine. These ligands readily reacted with the metal alkyl reagents GaMe 3 and InMe 3 to afford the pentacoordinate complexes [(fpzbpy)MMe 2 ] ( 1a, M = Ga; 1b, M = In), [(ftzbpy)MMe 2 ] ( 2a, M = Ga; 2b, M = In), and [(N4bpy)MMe 2 ] ( 3a, M = Ga; 3b, M = In), in which (fpzbpy)H, (ftzbpy)H, and (N4bpy)H denote 6-pyrazolyl-, 6-triazolyl-, and 6-tetrazolyl-substituted 2,2′-bipyridine, respectively. These complexes exhibited moderate blue-green emission ranging from 412 to 493 nm. On the other hand, treatment of the bidentate 2-pyridyl tetrazole ligand (pyN4)H with InMe 3 afforded the bridged dimer [Me 2 In(pyN4)] 2 ( 4 ). Calculation based on time-dependent density function theory (TDDFT) showed that the S 1 state of complexes 1 − 3 is mainly attributed to an allowed intraligand π → π* electronic transition located at tridentate chelating moieties, together with a small contribution (<10%) of gallium (or indium) → π* (ligand) charge transfer transition. Accordingly, the corresponding emission properties of 1a − 3a (or 1b − 3b ) can be rationalized using the correlation between the substituent effect of azolyl groups and the relative HOMO/LUMO energy level.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".