A critical evaluation of homo- and hetero-leptic cadmium complexes using bond valence sums
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
The effect of the donor atoms in Cd complexes on the determination of R 0 values for the bond valence sum (BVS) is reported. A total of 1321 CdX m Y n fragments with X and Y = O, N, S, Cl, Br, and I were used to calculate the R 0 values for CdX bonds from both homoleptic and heteroleptic fragments. The R 0 values determined from mixed CdX m Y n fragments agree with those determined from the homoleptic species, with no significant differences in the values as a function of either electronegativity or hardsoft character of the atoms. The new R 0 values derived from the homoleptic series recommended for use in calculating the BVS are as follows: Cd(II)O of 1.875(13) Å, Cd(II)N of 1.951(15) Å, Cd(II)S of 2.279(7) Å, Cd(II)Cl of 2.216(17) Å, Cd(II)Br of 2.334(7) Å, and Cd(II)I of 2.525(7) Å. These R 0 values can be used to calculate the oxidation state of Cd in complexes where Cd is bonded to any combination of O, N, S, Cl, Br, and I donor atoms. Cases where the BVS does not agree with the expected oxidation state are discussed. In particular, the planarity of Cd porphyrins is discussed in terms of the BVS.Key words: bond valence sums, cadmium complexes, cadmium porphyrins, cadmium distances.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 it