Unique {H(SiR<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub>}, (H<sub>2</sub>SiR<sub>3</sub>), H(HSiR<sub>3</sub>), and (H<sub>2</sub>)SiR<sub>3</sub> Ligand Sets Supported by the {Fe(Cp)(L)} Platform (L=CO, PR<sub>3</sub>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work deals with the type and incidence of nonclassical Si--H and H--H interactions in a family of silylhydride complexes [Fe(Cp)(OC)(SiMe(n)Cl(3-n))H(X)] (X=SiMe(n)Cl(3-n), H, Me, n=0-3) and [Fe(Cp)(Me(3)P)(SiMe(n)Cl(3-n))(2)H] (n=0-3). DFT calculations complemented by atom-in-molecule analysis and calculations of NMR hydrogen-silicon coupling constants revealed a surprising diversity of nonclassical Si--H and H--H interligand interactions. The compounds [Fe(Cp)(L)(SiMe(n)Cl(3-n))(2)H] (L=CO, PMe(3); n=0-3) exhibit an unusual distortion from the ideal piano-stool geometry in that the silyl ligands are strongly shifted toward the hydride and there is a strong trend towards flattening of the {FeSi(2)H} fragment. Such a distortion leads to short Si--H contacts (range 2.030-2.075 A) and large Mayer bond orders. A novel feature of these extended Si--H interactions is that they are rather insensitive towards the substitution at the silicon atom and the orientation of the silyl ligand relatively the Fe--H bond. NMR spectroscopy and bonding features of the related complexes [Fe(Cp)(OC)(SiMe(n)Cl(3-n))H(Me)] (n=0-3) allow for their rationalization as usual eta(2)-Si--H silane sigma-complexes. The series of "dihydride" complexes [Fe(Cp)(OC)(SiMe(n)Cl(3-n))H(2)] (n=0-3) is different from the previous two families in that the type of interligand interactions strongly depends on the substitution on silicon. They can be classified either as usual dihydrogen complexes, for example, [Fe(Cp)(OC)(SiMe(2)Cl)(eta(2)-H(2))], or as compounds with nonclassical H--Si interactions, for example, [Fe(Cp)(OC)(H)(2)(SiMe(3))] (16). These nonclassical interligand interactions are characterized by increased negative J(H,Si) (e.g. -27.5 Hz) and increased J(H,H) (e.g. 67.7 Hz).
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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".