An Unusual Ligand in Copper Chemistry: Coordination Oligomers and Polymers Containing the [{CpMo(CO)<sub>2</sub>}<sub>2</sub>(μ,η<sup>2</sup>-Sb<sub>2</sub>)] Cluster
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coordination behavior of [[CpMo(CO)(2)}(2)(mu,eta(2)-Sb(2))] (1; Cp = cyclopentadiene) toward Cu(I) was investigated. Its reaction with CuX (X = Br, Cl, and I) produced oligomers or polymers of the general formula [[CpMo(CO)(2)](2)(mu,eta(2)-Sb(2))(mu-CuX)](n). While 2 (X = Cl, n = 2) and 3 (X = Br, n = 2) proved to be halogen-bridged dimers in both solution and solid state, the molecules of 4 (X = I, n = infinity) self-assembled in the crystal forming a linear polymer with a Cu-I skeleton supported by Sb-Cu bonds. The reaction of 1 with Cu[GaCl(4)] resulted in the formation of the ionic complex [[CpMo(CO)(2)](2)(mu,eta(2)-Sb(2))](4)Cu(2)[GaCl(4)](2) (5). Its dication contains four [[CpMo(CO)(2)](2)(mu,eta(2)-Sb(2))] ligands arranged around a Cu-Cu dumbbell. All new compounds were characterized using IR, electrospray ionization mass spectrometry, (1)H NMR, elemental analysis, and single-crystal X-ray diffraction. The ligand was oxidized by both silver(I) and copper(II), and a cyclovoltammetric study revealed that 1 suffered irreversible reduction and oxidation in a dichloromethane solution at -2.04 and 0.10 V, respectively, versus ferrocene.
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".