Synthesis, structure and magnetic properties of Nd3+ and Pr3+ 2D polymers with tetrafluoro-p-phthalate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two lanthanide tetrafluoro-p-phthalate (L(2-)) complexes, Ln(L)(1.5)·DMF·H(2)O (Ln = Pr(3+) (1), Nd(3+) (2)), were synthesized using pyridine as a base. The compounds were found to be isostructural, and the structure of 1 has been determined by single crystal X-ray diffraction (monoclinic, space group C2, a = 22.194(2) Å, b = 11.4347(12) Å, c = 11.7160(12) Å, β = 94.703(2)°, V = 2963.3(5) Å(3), Z = 4). The crystal structure of 1 consists of dinuclear Pr(3+) units, which are connected by tetrafluoro-p-phthalate, forming separate 2D polymeric layers. The Ln(3+) ions in the dinuclear Ln(2) units are linked by two μ-O atoms and by two bridging O-C-O groups. The structure is porous with DMF and water molecules located between layers. Non-coordinated DMF molecules occupy about 27% of the unit cell volume. A systematic analysis of reported structures of Ln(III) polymers with p-phthalate and its derivatives shows that the ca. known 60 structures can be divided into six possible structural types depending on the presence of certain structural motifs. The magnetic properties of compounds 1 and 2 were studied. The dependence of χ(M)T on T (where χ(M) is magnetic susceptibility per dinuclear lanthanide unit) for 1 and 2 was simulated using two different models, based on: (i) the Hamiltonian Ĥ = ΔĴ(z)(2)+ μ(B)g(J)HĴ, which utilises an axial splitting parameter Δ and temperature-independent paramagnetism (tip) and (ii) crystal field splitting. It was found that both models gave satisfactory fits, indicating that the Ln-Ln exchange interactions are small and the symmetry of the coordination environment is the main factor influencing the magnetic properties of these compounds.
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 | 0.000 |
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".