Hexameric and Tetrameric Copper(I) Thioamidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two copper(I) thioamidates {Cu[RCS(NR‘)]} x (R = n -Bu, R‘ = t- Bu; R, R‘ = Me) are obtained via reaction of copper(I) chloride with lithium thioamidates. Both occur as a mixture of hexamer and tetramer, detectable in solution by 1 H NMR spectroscopy. The hexamer is favored for methyl substituents, whereas the tetramer is the major product when bulkier butyl groups are used. These clusters are the first examples of copper(I) thioamidates and are the first metal thioamidates prepared via metathesis. The X-ray structures of {Cu[MeCS(NMe)]} 6 and {Cu[( n -Bu)CS(N- t- Bu)]} 4 are presented, and a mechanism for their formation based on aggregation of dimeric units is suggested. The core of the tetramer comprises a Cu 4 tetrahedron with short Cu···Cu distances. Each Cu 3 face of the tetrahedron is bridged by a η 1 (N),μ 2 (S) thioamidate unit. A similar bridging arrangement is seen in the hexamer, but in this case the ligands are organized in a paddle-wheel fashion about a Cu 6 S 6 pseudohexagonal prismatic core. In the case of {Cu[( n -Bu)CS(N- t- Bu)]} x ( x = 4, 6) the two oligomers are easily separated and the tetramer can be converted to the hexamer on heating above 100 °C.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".