Bond Dissociation Energies of Solvated Silver(I)−Amide Complexes: Competitive Threshold Collision-Induced Dissociations and Calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using competitive threshold collision-induced dissociation (TCID) measurements, experimental bond dissociation energies have been evaluated for the water, methanol, and acetonitrile adducts of silver(I)-amide complexes. The influence of the solvent molecules on the binding energy of silver(I) to acetamide, N-methylacetamide, and N,N-dimethylacetamide was investigated. Experimental results show that solvents decrease the amide binding energy by 4-6 kcal mol(-1). Using density functional theory (DFT), binding energies were evaluated using nine functionals, after full geometry optimizations with the ECP28MWB basis set for silver and the 6-311++G(2df,2pd) basis set for the other atomic constituents of the ligands. In addition, calculations employing the DZVP basis set for Ag and DZVP2 for C, H, N, and O atoms at the B3LYP and MP2 levels of theory were used to investigate the influence of the basis set on the theoretical bond energies. A comparison of the experimental and theoretical silver(I)-ligand bond dissociation energies enables an assessment of the limitations in the basis sets and functionals in describing the energetics of the metal-solvent interaction and the metal-amide interaction. No single functional/basis set combination was found capable of predicting binding energies with a sufficiently high level of accuracy for the silver(I)-amide solvent complexes.
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) | 0.000 | 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".