Identifying similarities and differences between analogous bisdithiolene and bisdiselenolene complexes: A computational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to ligand non‐innocence and reversible one‐electron‐transfer processes dithiolene complexes have been intensively studied both experimentally and computationally. While the substitution of the ligating sulfur atoms by selenium provides a means to delicately tune the behavior of dithiolene compounds, diselenolene complexes have not been as thoroughly examined. Yet, the search for such ligands has been ongoing since the 1970s. Thus, we have looked at several metal‐bisdiselenolene complexes and have compared key properties of these complexes with their bisdithiolene analogues to determine the effect of substituting the chalcogen atom. The results herein show that substitution of the sulfur atoms by selenium within these complexes only subtly changes the thermodynamics and kinetic reactivity of bisdithiolene complexes while not significantly affecting the geometries of the complexes. The significance being that the relatively minor structural changes that occur upon redox is a key feature of dithiolene complexes. Due to ligand non‐innocence and reversible one‐electron‐transfer processes dithiolene complexes have been intensively studied, however, diselenolene complexes have not. First‐principles calculations show that substitution of the sulfur atoms by selenium within the investigated complexes does offer the ability to subtly tune the thermodynamics and kinetic reactivity of bisdithiolene complexes, while not significantly affecting the geometries of the complexes. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".