Pt(2,2'-bpy)(O<sub>2</sub>CCF<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub> as a terminator for [Ag(O<sub>2</sub>CCF<sub>3</sub>)]<sub>n</sub> aggregates — Syntheses and structures of heterobimetallic Pt<sup>II</sup>Ag<sup>I</sup> complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reactions between Pt(2,2′-bpy)(O2CCF3)2 and Ag(O2CCF3) have been found to consistently produce heterobimetallic complexes where the [Pt(2,2′-bpy)]2+ unit acts as a terminator for various [Ag(O2CCF3)]n aggregates. The stoichiometry and the structure of the heterobimetallic complex obtained is dependent on the ratio of Pt(2,2′-bpy)(O2CCF3)2 and Ag(O2CCF3) used in the synthesis. When a 1:1 ratio of Pt/Ag was used, a heteronuclear complex Pt2Ag2(2,2′-bpy)2(O2CCF3)6 (1a) was obtained where the four metal ions have a linear Pt-Ag-Ag-Pt arrangement. Molecules of 1a stack in the crystal lattice via intermolecular Pt···Pt interactions to form a linear 1D extended structure. A structural isomer of 1a, Pt2Ag2(2,2′-bpy)2(O2CCF3)6 (1b), where the four metal ions have an L-shaped arrangement was also identified and characterized, which forms a zig-zag 1D extended structure via intermolecular Pt···Pt interactions. When the 1:2 and the 1:3 ratios of Pt/Ag were used, heteronuclear complexes Pt2Ag4(2,2′-bpy)2(O2CCF3)8 (2) and Pt2Ag6(2,2′-bpy)2(O2CCF3)10 (3) were isolated, respectively, where the Ag(I) ions form cyclic structures with the Pt(2,2′-bpy)(O2CCF3)2 units at the terminal positions. Further increase of the amount of Ag(O2CCF3) used in the synthesis did not lead to the isolation of larger aggregates. The structures of compounds 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 were determined by single-crystal X-ray diffraction analyses. 19F NMR spectroscopic analysis established that these heterobimetallic complexes undergo dynamic exchanges in solution.Key words: heterobimetallic complexes, structure, silver, platinum, metal-metal interaction.
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".