A Triple‐Decker Heptadecanuclear (Cu<sup>II</sup>)<sub>15</sub>(Cr<sup>III</sup>)<sub>2</sub> Complex Assembled from Pentanuclear Metallacrowns
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reaction of the pentanuclear Cu II metallacrown [Cu 5 (ahpha) 4 ](ClO 4 ) · 4H 2 O (ahpha 2– is the dianion of 3‐amino‐3‐(hydroximino)propanehydroxamic acid), with Cr(C 2 O 4 ) 3 3– led to the formation of a heptadecanuclear complex {[Cu 5 (ahpha) 4 ] 3 [Cr(C 2 O 4 ) 3 ] 2 · 4H 2 O} · 8H 2 O ·1 /3(DMF) ( 1· 8H 2 O · 1/3(DMF)). This compound contains three stacked Cu 5 (ahpha) 4 2+ building blocks, linked by axial bonds between Cu 2+ ions of one Cu 5 metallacrown and hydroxamate oxygen atoms of the neighboring Cu 5 unit. Two Cr(C 2 O 4 ) 3 3– anions are bonded to the two lateral Cu 5 (ahpha) 4 2+ cations through axial Cu–O(oxalate) bonds. The formation of 1 may be considered the first example of metallacrown trimerization caused by anion metathesis. The compound contains 10 × 13 Å voids (about 25 % of crystal volume), filled with solvate water molecules. The magnetic properties ( χ M T vs. T ) could be fitted as the superposition of the magnetism of 3 χ M T (Cu II 5 ) and 2 χ M T (Cr III ). Exchange interactions within the Cu II 5 units were fit in the framework of a model based on the Hamiltonian H(Cu II 5 ) = –2 J 1 (S 1 . S 5 + S 2 . S 5 + S 3 . S 5 + S 4 . S 5 ) –2 J 2 (S 1 . S 2 + S 2 . S 3 + S 3 . S 4 + S 4 . S 1 ), where S 5 represents the central Cu 2+ ions' spins and the other spin operators correspond to the peripheral Cu 2+ ions. With other possible interactions taken into account using a molecular field approach, the best fit correspondedto J 1 = –153(5) cm –1 , J 2 = –71(2) cm –1 and zJ′ = –0.058(4) cm –1 .
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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 it