Synthesis and Structure of the Cluster Ion Pair {Ru<sub>3</sub>(CO)<sub>9</sub>[μ-P(NPr<sup>i</sup><sub>2</sub>)<sub>2</sub>]<sub>3</sub>}{Ru<sub>6</sub>(CO)<sub>15</sub>(μ<sub>6</sub>-C)[μ-P(NPr<sup>i</sup><sub>2</sub>)<sub>2</sub>]}. A Theoretical Overview of M<sub>3</sub>(μ-PR<sub>2</sub>)<sub>3</sub> Frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The compound [Ru3(CO)9[mu-P(NPri2)2]3][Ru6(CO)15(mu 6-C)[mu-P(NPri2)2]] (1), obtained via the addition of PCl(NPri2)2 to K2[Ru4(CO)13], crystallizes in the monoclinic space group P2l/c with a = 15.537(8) A, b = 36.151(16) A, c = 19.407(5) A, beta = 91.14(2) degrees, Z = 4, and R = 0.069 for 8006 observed reflections. The unit cell is unusual in that it contains both a typical octahedral Ru6 cluster anion (1a), featuring an encapsulated carbide, and a symmetrical phosphido bridge, in addition to a 50-electron trinuclear cluster cation [Ru3(CO)9[mu-P(NPri2)2]3]+ (1c). The latter, with approximate D3h symmetry, exhibits long Ru-Ru distances (> or = 3.15 A). Among the family of clusters with M3(mu-PR2)3 cores and different numbers of both electrons (TEC) and terminal ligands (LxLyLz), 1c is unique in that it is a 333 stereotype with 50 valence electrons. MO calculations permit us to predict the existence of redox congeners of 1c clusters and related 48e Re3 clusters. This work also presents a summary of the relationships between the electronic and the geometric structures for all known M3LxLyLz(mu-PR2)3 species. The basic stereochemical features are influenced by the total-electron count and, hence, by the degree of M-M bonding, as well as the remarkable flexibility of the phosphido bridging ligands. The mu-PR2 ligands need not necessarily lie in the M3 plane, and a wide range of M-P-M angles (as small as 72 degrees or as large as 133 degrees) have been observed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
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".