Theoretical Investigation of the Apparently Irregular Behavior of Pt−Pt Nuclear Spin−Spin Coupling Constants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One-bond Pt-Pt nuclear spin-spin coupling constants J(Pt-Pt) for closely related dinuclear Pt complexes can differ by an order of magnitude without any obvious correlation with Pt-Pt distances. As representative examples, the spin-spin couplings of the dinuclear Pt(I) complexes [Pt(2)(CO)(6)](2+) (1) and [Pt(2)(CO)(2)Cl(4)](2-) (2) have been computationally studied with a recently developed relativistic density functional method. The experimental values are (1)J((195)Pt-(195)Pt) = 5250 Hz for 2 but 551 Hz for 1. Many other examples are known in the literature. The experimental trends are well reproduced by the computations and can be explained based on the nature of the ligands that are coordinated to the Pt-Pt fragment. The difference for J(Pt-Pt) of an order of magnitude is caused by a sensitive interplay between the influence of different ligands on the Pt-Pt bond, and relativistic effects on metal-metal and metal-ligand bonds as well as on "atomic orbital contributions" to the nuclear spin-spin coupling constants. The results can be intuitively rationalized with the help of a simple qualitative molecular orbital diagram.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".