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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".