MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107332651 · doi:10.1002/chem.200802498

Silver(I) Complexes of the Weakly Coordinating Solvents SO<sub>2</sub> and CH<sub>2</sub>Cl<sub>2</sub>: Crystal Structures, Bonding, and Energetics of [Ag(OSO)][Al{OC(CF<sub>3</sub>)<sub>3</sub>}<sub>4</sub>], [Ag(OSO)<sub>2/2</sub>][SbF<sub>6</sub>], and [Ag(CH<sub>2</sub>Cl<sub>2</sub>)<sub>2</sub>][SbF<sub>6</sub>]

2009· article· en· W2107332651 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry - A European Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicInorganic Fluorides and Related Compounds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCrystallographyCrystal structureSolventMoleculeIonMetathesisLewis acids and basesOrganic chemistryPolymerCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pushing the limits of coordination chemistry: The most weakly coordinated silver complexes of the very weakly coordinating solvents dichloromethane and liquid sulfur dioxide were prepared. Special techniques at low temperatures and the use of weakly coordinating anions allowed structural characterization of [Ag(OSO)][Al{OC(CF(3))(3)}(4)], [Ag(OSO)(2/2)][SbF(6)], and [Ag(Cl(2)CH(2))(2)][SbF(6)] (see figure). An investigation of the bonding shows that these complexes are mainly stabilized by electrostatic monopole-dipole interactions.The synthetically useful solvent-free silver(I) salt Ag[Al(pftb)(4)] (pftb=--OC(CF(3))(3)) was prepared by metathesis reaction of Li[Al(pftb)(4)] with Ag[SbF(6)] in liquid SO(2). The solvated complexes [Ag(OSO)][Al(pftb)(4)], [Ag(OSO)(2/2)][SbF(6)], and [Ag(CH(2)Cl(2))(2)][SbF(6)] were prepared and isolated by special techniques at low temperatures and structurally characterized by single-crystal X-ray diffraction. The SO(2) complexes provide the first examples of coordination of the very weak Lewis base SO(2) to silver(I). The SO(2) molecule in [Ag(OSO)][Al(pftb)(4)] is eta(1)-O coordinated to Ag(+), while the SO(2) ligands in [Ag(OSO)(2/2)][SbF(6)] bridge two Ag(+) ions in an eta(2)-O,O' (trans,trans) manner. [Ag(CH(2)Cl(2))(2)][SbF(6)] contains [Ag(CH(2)Cl(2))(2)](+) ions linked through [SbF(6)](-) ions to give a polymeric structure. The solid-state silver(I) ion affinities (SIA) of SO(2) and CH(2)Cl(2), based on bond lengths and corresponding valence units in the corresponding complexes and tensimetric titrations of Ag[Al(pftb)(4)] and Ag[SbF(6)] with SO(2) vapor, show that SO(2) is a weaker ligand to Ag(+) than the commonly used weakly coordinating solvent CH(2)Cl(2) and indicated that binding strength of SO(2) to silver(I) in the silver(I) salts increases with increasing size of the corresponding counteranion ([Al(pftb)(4)](-)>[SbF(6)](-)). The experimental findings are in good agreement with theoretical gas-phase ligand-binding energies of [Ag(L)(n)](+) (L=SO(2), CH(2)Cl(2); n=1, 2) and solid-state enthalpies obtained from Born-Fajans-Haber cycles by using the volume-based thermodynamics (VBT) approach. Bonding analysis (VB, NBO, MO) of [Ag(L)(n)](+) suggests that these complexes are almost completely stabilized by electrostatic interaction, that is, monopole-dipole interaction, with almost no covalent contribution by electron donation from the ligand orbitals into the vacant 5s orbital of Ag(+). All experimental findings and theoretical considerations demonstrate that SO(2) is less covalently bound to Ag(+) than CH(2)Cl(2) and support the thesis that SO(2) is a polar but non-coordinating solvent towards Ag(+).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0170.018
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.009
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0120.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0130.010
Research integrity0.0090.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it