Theoretical exploration of uranyl complexes of a designed polypyrrolic macrocycle: structure/property effects of hinge size on Pacman-shaped complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A polypyrrolic macrocycle with naphthalenyl linkers between the N(4)-donor compartments (L(2)) was designed theoretically according to its experimentally-known analogues with phenylenyl (L(1)) and anthracenyl (L(3)) linkers. The uranyl and bis(uranyl) complexes formed by this L(2) ligand have been examined using scalar-relativistic density functional theory. The calculated structural properties of the mononuclear uranyl-L(2) complexes are similar to those of their L(1) counterparts. The binuclear L(2) complexes exhibit a butterfly-like bis(uranyl) core in which a linear uranyl is coordinated in a side-by-side fashion to a cis-uranyl unit. The calculated U[double bond, length as m-dash]O bond orders in the uranyl-L(2) complexes indicate partial triple bonding character with the only exceptions being the U-O(endo) bonds in the U(2)O(4) core of the butterfly-shaped binuclear complexes. Overall, the bond orders agree with the trends in the calculated U[double bond, length as m-dash]O stretching vibrational frequencies. Regarding the bis(uranyl) L(1), L(2) and L(3) complexes, the phenylenyl-hinge L(1) complexes adopt a butterfly-like and a T-shaped isomer in the oxidation state of U(vi), but only a butterfly-like one in the U(v), which differs from that of the naphthalenyl-hinge L(2) complexes as well as the lateral twisted structure of the anthracenyl-hinge L(3) complexes. The intramolecular cation-cation interactions are found in the L(1) and L(2) complexes, but are absent in the L(3) complexes. Finally, using model uranyl transfer reactions from the L(1) complexes, the formation of the mononuclear L(2) complexes is calculated to be a slightly endothermic process. This suggests that it should be possible to synthesize the L(2) complexes using similar protocols as employed for the L(1) 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 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) | 0.002 | 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".