Tunable Trimers: Using Temperature and Pressure to Control Luminescent Emission in Gold(I) Pyrazolate‐Based Trimers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic investigation into the relationship between the solid-state luminescence and the intermolecular Au⋅⋅⋅Au interactions in a series of pyrazolate-based gold(I) trimers; tris(μ2 -pyrazolato-N,N')-tri-gold(I) (1), tris(μ2 -3,4,5- trimethylpyrazolato-N,N')-tri-gold(I) (2), tris(μ2 -3-methyl-5-phenylpyrazolato-N,N')-tri-gold(I) (3) and tris(μ2 -3,5-diphenylpyrazolato-N,N')-tri-gold(I) (4) has been carried out using variable temperature and high pressure X-ray crystallography, solid-state emission spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy and computational techniques. Single-crystal X-ray studies show that there is a significant reduction in the intertrimer Au⋅⋅⋅Au distances both with decreasing temperature and increasing pressure. In the four complexes, the reduction in temperature from 293 to 100 K is accompanied by a reduction in the shortest intermolecular Au⋅⋅⋅Au contacts of between 0.04 and 0.08 Å. The solid-state luminescent emission spectra of 1 and 2 display a red shift with decreasing temperature or increasing pressure. Compound 3 does not emit under ambient conditions but displays increasingly red-shifted luminescence upon cooling or compression. Compound 4 remains emissionless, consistent with the absence of intermolecular Au⋅⋅⋅Au interactions. The largest pressure induced shift in emission is observed in 2 with a red shift of approximately 630 cm(-1) per GPa between ambient and 3.80 GPa. The shifts in all the complexes can be correlated with changes in Au⋅⋅⋅Au distance observed by diffraction.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".