Harnessing Low-Valent Metal Centers through Non-Bonding Orbital Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The synthesis, characterization, and computational analysis of a series of low-valent, In(I) complexes bearing the bis(imino)pyridine scaffold, {Ar'N=CPh}(2)(NC(5)H(3)), is reported. A stepwise steric reduction of the aryl groups on the imine substituents around the coordination site, (Ar' = 2,5-(t)Bu(2)C(6)H(3), 2,6-(i)Pr(2)C(6)H(3), 2,6-(CH(3)CH(2))(2)C(6)H(3)) is explored through the spectroscopic and crystallographic examination of complexes [{Ar'N=CPh}(2)(NC(5)H(3))]In(+)(OTf)(-) (1-3). Compounds 1-3 displayed long In-N and In-OTf distances indicating only weak or no coordination. Application of the ligand with Ar' = 2,6-(CH(3))(2)C(6)H(3) led to an In(III) bis(imino)pyridine complex, [{2,6-Me(2)C(6)H(3)N=CPh}(2)(NC(5)H(3))]In(OTf)(2)Cl 4 with coordinated ligand, chloride, and triflate groups. Computational analysis of the interactions between the In cation and the ligands (orbital populations, bond order, and energy decomposition analysis) point to only minimal covalent interactions of the In(I) cation with the ligands. Although it features three N donor centers, the bis(imino)pyridine ligand provides little ligand-to-metal donation. A thorough electronic structure analysis revealed a correlation of compound stability with the reduced contribution of the In(I) 5s lone electron pair to the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of the cation. This effect, originating from non-bonding orbital interactions between the metal and the ligand, is more prominent in sterically crowded environments. The discovery of this correlation may help in designing new low-valent complexes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".