Supramolecular Organoplatinum(IV) Chemistry: Sequential Introduction of Amide Hydrogen Bonding Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The self-assembly of organoplatinum(IV) complexes to give supramolecular polymers and network materials is described, using the ligand ethyl 5′-[(ethoxycarbonyl)amino]-2,2′-bipyridine-5-carboxylate ( 1 ), which contains the EtOC(═O)NH− hydrogen bonding donor group. Ligand 1 reacts with [Pt 2 Me 4 (μ-SMe 2 ) 2 ] to give [PtMe 2 ( 1 )] ( 2 ), which forms a supramolecular polymer in the solid state through formation of intermolecular NH···O═C hydrogen bonds with further self-assembly to a sheet structure through π-stacking. Oxidative addition of bromomethyl compounds RCH 2 Br to complex 2 gave the corresponding organoplatinum(IV) complexes [PtBrMe 2 (CH 2 R)( 1 )], in which the group R could contain a further hydrogen bonding carboxamide group, and the organoplatinum(IV) complexes with two hydrogen-bond donor groups could form either supramolecular polymers or sheet structures through hydrogen bonding. As well as the anticipated NH···O═C hydrogen bonds, some complexes formed hydrogen bonds to solvent molecules NH···O(solvent) or to coordinated bromide NH···BrPt or a combination of π-stacking with CH···Br hydrogen bonding. New forms of self-assembly in organometallic compounds were identified, one involving polymerization through intermolecular NH···Br···HN supramolecular chelation and one involving a combination of NH···O═C and CH···Br hydrogen bonding along with π-stacking to form a network composed of multiply intercalated sheets.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".