MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112477860 · doi:10.1039/c2dt30948c

The role of bridging ligand in hydrogen generation by photocatalytic Ru/Pd assemblies

2012· article· en· W2112477860 on OpenAlexaff
Gurmeet Singh Bindra, Martin Schulz, Avishek Paul, Robert Groarke, Suraj Soman, Jane Inglis, Wesley R. Browne, M. Pfeffer, Sven Rau, Brian J. MacLean, Mary T. Pryce, Johannes G. Vos

Bibliographic record

VenueDalton Transactions · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicElectrocatalysts for Energy Conversion
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotocatalysisIntramolecular forceHeteronuclear moleculePhotochemistryTerpyridineRutheniumRaman spectroscopyIntermolecular forceChemistryMaterials scienceMoleculeMetalCatalysisStereochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The synthesis and characterisation of two terpyridine based ruthenium/palladium heteronuclear compounds are presented. The photocatalytic behaviour of the Ru/Pd complex containing the linear 2,2':5',2''-terpyridine bridge (1a) and its analogue the non-linear 2,2':6',2''-terpyridine bridge (2a) are compared together with the respective mononuclear complexes 1 and 2. Irradiation of 1a with visible light (e.g., 470 nm) results in the photocatalytic generation of dihydrogen gas. Photocatalysis was not observed with complex 2a by contrast. A comparison with the photocatalytic behaviour of the precursors 1 and 2 indicates, that while for 1a the photocatalysis is an intramolecular process, for the mononuclear precursors it is intermolecular. The photophysical and electrochemical properties of the mono- and heterobinuclear compounds are compared. Raman spectroscopy and DFT calculations indicate that there are substantial differences in the nature of the lowest energy (3)MLCT states of 1a and 2a, from which the contrasting photocatalytic activities of the complexes can be understood.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDalton TransactionsSame topicElectrocatalysts for Energy ConversionFrench-language works237,207