Unusual coordination behaviour of the ferrocenyl-terpyridine ligand with group 11 complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complexes of the ligand Fcterpy (Fcterpy = 4′-ferrocenyl-2,2′:6′,2′-terpyridine) with group 11 metals display different coordination modes. The reaction with complexes [Cu(NO 3 )(PPh 3 ) 2 ] or [M(OTf)(PR 3 )] (OTf = trifluoromethyl sulphonate) gives the species [M(Fcterpy)(PR 3 )]X (M = Cu, X = PF 6 , PR 3 = PPh 3 (1); M = Ag, X = OTf, PR 3 = PPh 3 (2), PPh 2 Me (3); M = Au, X = OTf, PR 3 = PPh 3 (4)) in which the ligand is coordinated as a tridentate chelate to the metal. Treatment with [Cu(NCMe) 4 ]PF 6 or Ag(OTf) in 1:1 molar ratio gives the dinuclear complexes [M 2 (Fcterpy) 2 ]X 2 (M = Cu (5), Ag (6)), in which the ligand is tetradentate because the central pyridine group is bonded to two metals. The reaction with the gold(I) complex [Au(C 6 F 5 )(tht)] (tht = tetrahydrothiophene) leads to the first example of a terpyridine ligand bonded to three metal atoms, [Au 3 (C 6 F 5 ) 3 (Fcterpy)] (7); in the product of the corresponding reaction with the gold(III) derivative [Au(C 6 F 5 ) 3 (OEt 2 )] to give [Au(C 6 F 5 ) 3 (Fcterpy)] (8), the ligand is monodentate, which is also unusual for a terpyridine ligand.Key words: copper, silver, gold, terpyridine, ferrocene derivatives
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".