Macrocyclic and Lantern Complexes of Palladium(II) with Bis(amidopyridine) Ligands: Synthesis, Structure, and Host−Guest Chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reactions of [PdCl2(NCPh)2] in a 1:1 ratio with the bis(amidopyridine) ligands LL=C6H3(5-R)(1,3-CONH-3-C5H4N)2 with R=H (1a) or R=t-Bu (1b) give the corresponding neutral dipalladium(II) macrocycles trans,trans-[Pd2Cl4(mu-LL)2], 2a and 2b, which crystallize from dimethylformamide with one or two solvent molecules as macrocycle guests. The reaction of [PdCl2(NCPh)2] with LL in a 1:2 ratio gave the cationic lantern complex [Pd2(mu-LL)4]Cl4, 3c (LL=1b), and the reaction in the presence of AgO2CCF3 gave the corresponding trifluoroacetate salts [Pd2(mu-LL)4](CF3CO2)4, 3a (LL=1a) and 3b (LL=1b). These lantern complexes exhibit a remarkable host-guest chemistry, as they can encapsulate cations, anions, and water molecules by interaction of the guest with either the electrophilic NH or the nucleophilic C=O substituents of the amide groups, which can be directed toward the center of the lantern through easy conformational change. The structures of several of these host-guest complexes were determined, and it was found that the cavity size and shape vary according to the ligand conformation, with Pd...Pd separations in the range from 9.45 to 11.95 A. Supramolecular ordering of the lanterns was observed in the solid state, through either hydrogen bonding or secondary bonding to the cationic palladium(II) centers. The selective inclusion by the lantern complexes of alkali metal ions in the sequence Na+ >> K+ >> Li+ was observed by ESI-MS.
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 | 0.001 |
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".